1920-04-12

CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 53 to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, and the Civil Service . Amendment Act, 1919.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. ROWELL:: The Bill is one which contains some formal amendments [DOT] to the Civil Service Act, these amendments having been found necessary or desirable in the actual administration of the Act. There is, however, one very important provision and it is the main provision of the Bill. It provides that the re-classification of the Civil Service shall go into effect as from the first day of April, 1919, instead of the first day of April, 1920, as provided in the Act of last session. Hon. members will recall that when the Act was before the House last session it was urged that the classification should be made effective as from the first of April, 1919. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who was in charge of the Bill, stated that the Government would take the matter into consideration in the meantime and that if the Government considered it desirable or necessary that the re-classification should be dated back to the first of April, 1919, an amending Act would be introduced this session. The Government has reached the conclusion that it is desirable and in the public interest to make the classification date from the first of April, 1919, and the main provision of the Bill is to carry out that decision. The' effect will be that where the salaries of civil servants are increased under the classification, they will get the benefit of that increase 'from the first of April, 1919, and that where provision is made under the classification for an annual increase in salaries they will be eligible for the first increase on the first day of April, 1920. It has an1 Simiportant bearing upon the salaries of the civil servants throughout Canada as affected by the classification.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first, time.



GRAND TRUNK ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54 to confirm the agreement dated the 8th day of March, 1920, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, except the four per cent guaranteed stock.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hon. Mr. REID:: To the Bill that passed last session there was a schedule attached giving the list of the companies owned and controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. In that there were two small errors. One of them was the omission of the Vermont and Province Line Railway Company controlled by Grand Trunk ownership to the extent of 100 per cent. There was another small line, the Pembroke Southern Railway Company, that was in the list as being controlled under lease. It should have been designated as 'being controlled by majority stock ownership. It is necessary to amend the agreement to 'correct these two small errors. Then having corrected the errors I am proposing to add a second clause to confirm or ratify the agreement that was submitted to the shareholders including these two small railways. It is necessary, on account of these two small railways that we should confirm the whole agreement. Clause 2 reads:	.
The said agreement, as corrected as aforesaid, is hereby declared to have been sufficiently ratified by the holders of the stocks of the Grand Trunk as required by section seven of the said Act. and to be binding and effecive and is hereby in all respects ratified and confirmed as the agreement authorized by the said Act and for all the purposes thereof.
, We are not changing the agreement in any way other than that we are correcting these two errors. I am anxious to get the Bill through as soon as possible in order that we can complete the agreement, appoint the arbitrators and proceed with the arbitration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand that the Bill would not have been introduced except for the purpose of correcting these errors?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the only reason that is given to me. But for these small
railways it would not have been necessary to ratify the agreement that was passed last session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The ratifying of the agreement is a secondary consideration in introducing the Bill; primarily it is to correct these errors?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55 to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said: This is the Bill I referred to a few days ago. I want it to be consolidated with the other Bill that is now in committee. The object is to include soldiers who have served in the armies of the United States in the same rank with soldiers of the Allies as regards homesteading privileges. The United States being an associated power they were held not to be so included.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
.HULL AND MONTREAL HIGHWAY.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle):: May I be permitted to ask the Minister of Railways a question on a subject which I deem to be in the public interest. I have been told that agreements have been passed between this Government and the goverifments in the different provinces, in relation to the construction of highways. I would ask if any agreement has been passed between the Dominion Government and the Government of the province of Quebec for the construction of a highway between Ottawa and Hull and the city of Montreal. I have reference to that particular highway, the construction ol which has already been decided upon by the provincial authorities and which is intended to traverse the north shore of the Ottawa river. If such an agreement has been passed, many municipalities are very anxious to know whether any provision Ijas been made in it for the building of the particular highway referred to.


John Dowsley Reid: In reply to the hon. gentleman I may say that it is necessary for the governments of the several provinces to submit for the approval of the Federal Railway Department plans of the highway which they propose

to construct. The Quebec Government-together with several, if not all of the other provincial	governments-has	submitted
plans which are now before the Commissioner of Highways and the commission appointed to work in conjunction with him, for the purpose of approving such plans. Personally I have not yet looked over the plans and will be unable t) give an answer to the hon. gentleman until about the first of next week. Then I hope to be able to afford him the information which he is seeking.



RAILWAY CARS HELD IN THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Will the Minister of Railways be good enough to state whether he has yet succeeded in getting any Canadian railway cars back from the United States. I am told by shippers in the province of New Brunswick that it is desirable that 5,000 ears should be distributed along the Transcontinental there as soon as possible.


John Dowsley Reid: I may tell the hon. gentleman that the Department of Railways and the railway companies are still using every possible means to get cars returned from the United States. We are now receiving them a little faster than we were a few weeks ago, and L hope that at an early date to be able to remove the troubles existing along the different railway lines of this country where there has been delay in obtaining cars.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks).

*Mr. CAS GRAIN:: 1.	When and why was an embargo placed upon the exportation of newsprint paper manufactured by some of the mills?
2.	Has the Government received any communication, written or oral, from the State Department at Washington or from the Foreign Office in London in regard thereto?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	An embargo was placed on the exportation of newsprint paper manufactured by Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company, 18th December, 1919; an embargo was placed on the exportation of newsprint paper manufactured by Price Brothers on 3rd January, 1920, in both cases under instruction of the Paper Controller.
2.	Yes.
[Mr .J. D. Reid.]


IMPORTATION OF SHIP CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
Mr. COPP:: How much has been paid by the Department of Naval Service for material imported from the United States to be used in the construction of Canadian boats from the 1st of January 191S, to the 1st of January 1920?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: $94,489.96.


DUTIES ON TOBACCO.
Mr. ETHIER:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to change the tariff on tobacco?
2.	Is it the intention to impose a duty on leaf tobacco?
3.	If so, is it the intention to impose a similar or equivalent duty on manufactured tobacco, either imported or Canadian?
4.	Has the Government received any petitions from the Canadian tobacco producers protesting against the imposition of all duties on Canadian leaf tobacco, and asking that, in all cases, a similar duty be imposed on manufactured tobacco, imported or Canadian?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Any tariff changes will be announced in due course.
2.	A duty of 5 cents per pound on Canadian raw leaf tobacco an'd 40 cents per pound on imported unstemmed raw leaf tobacco is at present imposed.
3.	A duty of 20 cents per pound is at present imposed on tobacco manufactured in Canada and on manufactured tobacco imported into Canada a customs duty of 95 cents per pound on cut tobacco and 90 cents per pound on manufactured tobacco n.o.p. and snuff.
4.	Petitions have been received against the imposition of any additional taxation on tobacco.


PAYMENTS TO NEWSPAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. CASGRAIN:
1.	How much money was paid to the Gazette, of Montreal, La Patrie, of Montreal, for printing within the last twelve months?
2.	Is it not true that E. F. Slack, now deceased, and Eugene Tarte, of Montreal, both respectively connected with Gazette of Montreal and La Patrie, were appointed by the Government on a commission to inquire about the Government Printing Bureau?
3.	Is it not true that following the report made by these gentlemen the Government has released a great number of the employees of the Printing Bureau?
Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1. Department.	Gazette. La	Patrie.Auditor General ..	
$	43 75Customs	. $ 56 00	33 60Indian Affairs .. ..	24 75Labour 	. 84 00	63 75Militia and Defence ..	31	50Mounted Police .. ..	206	00	112	50Naval Service	286	80	239	10Post Office	518	70	41	50Printing Bureau .. ..	33,668	48	13.687	76Railway and Canals ..	18,450	53	11,095	48Soldiers' Civil Re-	establishment .. ..	7,504	87

2.	Yes.	.
3.	Yes.


FEDERAL, LAND SURVEYORS.
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Are the Federal land surveyors, doing: outside works, under the control of the Civil Service Commission?
2.	If so, since when?
3.	Are some of them permanent?
4.	Are they entitled to a superannuation after a certain number of years of service?
5.	Will the Surveyor General, Capt. Deville, be able to suggest the names of the land surveyors who will do the field work for the Government?
6.	Are field works to be made by tender, by contract, or by the day?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Such Dominion Land Surveyors as are in the public service are under the control of the Civil Service Commission.
2.	Since February 13, 1918.
3.	Yes.
4.	Those who were employed prior to 1897 are entitled to superannuation if they are on the Superannuation Fund. Since that date there has been no superannuation for the Civil Service.
5.	Yes.
6.	By the day.


RIVIERE ST. PIERRE FLOODS.
Mr. LEDUC:: 1.	Does the Government intend to take action to overcome the causes of the great damages recently made by the Little River St. Peter in Westmount, Quebec, and improve the situation in the coming year?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Does the Government know that there are about five hundred families who suffer every spring on account of such floods?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	As the so-called Little River St. Pierre is not a navigable stream, it does not come under the control of the Federal Government.
2.	Answered by answer to question number 1.
3.	No information.


GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE - PURCHASES OF COAL.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Cape Breton South):: 1.	What was the total quantity of (a) Canadian coal and (b) American coal purchased 72
for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in Canada for the year ending December 31, 1919?
2.	What was the quantity of such coal purchased by tender and contract?
3.	When were the tenders called, where and how were they published and were the lowest tenderers in each case awarded the contract?
4.	What was the quantity supplied by each successful tenderer and at what price and place?
5.	What was the quantity, price and place of delivery of all coal not supplied under tender and contract, and what are the names of the companies or firms supplying same?
6.	What is the estimated quantity of coal to be used by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the year 1920 as to (a) Canadian coal and (b) American coal?
7.	What contracts, if any, have already been entered into, and what are the particulars of such contracts, as to contracting firms, point of supply, quantity and price?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: (Acting Prime
Minister): The Government has no returns in its records showing the information asked for. These are transactions which are carried on by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine as an incorporated company.


STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE MILITARY HOSPITAL.
*Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Military Hospital?
2.	When was the construction begun?
3.	When did the contractors finish said construction?
4.	How many soldiers sojourned and were treated in said hospital?
5.	Upon what date was the use of the said hospital discontinued in connection with the treatment of soldiers?
6.	For what is the said hospital now used?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	$1,581,682.40.
2.	Contract for first group of buildings was awarded October 26, 1917.
3.	Last construction work was done in December, 1919, but patients were received on October 26, 1918.
4.	3,393 patients in all, of whom 2,888 were soldier patients; 469 were D.S.C.R. patients; 25 were Pension Board patients; and 11 were civilian employees of the hospital.
5.	The said hospital was transferred from the control and administration of the Department of Militia and Defence to that of Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment with effect from the 15th January, 1920.
6.	One hundred and seventy (170) beds in the said hospital are being utilized by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for general treatment purposes and also for the treatment of special types

of mental and neurological cases, and arrangements are now being made to concentrate at this hospital the treatment of mental and other cases which will number several hundred.


QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. POWER:: X. When was the Quebec bridge opened for traffic?
2.	Has any tariff fixing the tolls for the use of the bridge been approved by the Governor in Council under paragraph 15 of the Agreement forming the Schedule to the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company Act, Chapter 54, 1903? If not, why?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	December 3, 1917.
2.	No- The agreement is abrogated by action taken under chapter 59 of Statutes of 1908.


Mr. POWER:: 1.	By what companies is the Quebec bridge now being used?
2.	What charges are made for the use of the said bridge?
3.	What is the gross amount of revenue received for the use of this bridge?
4.	To what account has this amount been credited?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	By Government railways.
2.	'Charges included in through passenger and freight rates. Basis of charge for railways that may use bridge under consider-*tion by Departmental and Railway Officials.
3.	Bridge for operating purposes is treated as portion of Canadian National Railways, who pay maintenance of same.
4.	Answered by numbers 2 and 3.


Mr. POWER:: 1.	What was the cost of maintenance of the Quebec bridge for the year ending June 30, 1919?
2.	Under what authority is the control of the bridge at present?
3.	By whom is the railway bridge operated and under what authority?
4.	Has any return been made to the Statistical Branch of the Department of Railways and Canals regarding the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company? If not, why?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$6,336.26.
2.	Control in Crown under seven to eight, Edward VII, Chap. 59, Statutes of Canada, 1908, now entrusted for operation to Canadian National Railways.
3.	Answered by number 2.
4.	(a) No. (b) No such company.


HALIFAX GRAIN ELEVATOR.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysbor-ough):: 1.	At what date did the Government first assist in the construction or equipment of a grain elevator at Halifax, N.S. ?
2.	How much has been expended by the Government since that date in connection with the construction, equipment and operation of grain elevators at that port?
3.	How much grain went through said grain elevators during said period?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	1882.
2.	Construction $220,195.30. Equipment and operating from December 1910 to date, $147,381.81. There were no separate records kept previous to December, 1910.
3.	From 1903 to date-16,372,043 bushels. First elevator burned in 1895 and the records of the grain handled were destroyed in the fire. Construction of the second elevator was not started until 1899.


PENSION BOARD EMPLOYEES-SOLDIER ORGANIZATIONS.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Have instructions ever been issued either orally or written to employees of the Board of Pension Commissioners requesting them not to hold any official position in the G.W.V.A., or in any other association formed for the purpose of furthering the aims of the returned soldiers?
2.	If so, have these instructions ever been rescinded and by what authority?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


ST. LAWRENCE NORTH SHORE POST OFFICES.
Mr. SAVAKD:: H. How many post offices are there on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, from Tadous-sac to Esquimaux Point?
2.	What are the names, postal addresses and the date of appointment of each of these postmasters?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Tadoussac, Dr. C.
A. Cote, July 31, 1912; Petites Bergeronnes, Thos. Desbiens, February 1, 1994; Grandes Bergeronnes, H. Lapointe, October 1, 1903; Bon Desir, Jos. Gagnon, June 1, 1895; Les Escoumains, John Henry Topping, October 1, 1884; Baie des Bacons, X. Morin, July 1, 1903; Sault au Mouton, Phillipe J. Le Mar-quand, January 31, 1919; Mille Vaehes, E. Boulainne, June 18, 1909; Pointe au Boisvert, Mrs. 0. D. Tremblay, November 15, 1907; Hamilton Cove, Mrs. Louise Bouchard, May 25, 1917; Moulin Bersimis, Mrs. Frank Miller, October 26, 1910; Betsiamites, J. Gagnon, September 22, 1915; Pointe aux Outardes, Mrs. G. Feuilly, September 2,

1915; Baie St. Nicolas, Leandre Bouchard, August 10, 1917; Baie des Cedres, Philip Delair, January 15, 1920; Godbout, Napoleon A. Comeau, August 1, 1877; Pointe des Monts, Victor Fafard, November 18, 1916; Baie de la Trinite, George Jourdain, August 5, 1919; Cariboo Islands, J. B. Chouinard, June 20, 1912; Egg Island, Elzear Chouinard, March 23, 1915; Pointe aux Anglais, Louis Langlois, September 1, 1893; Pentecost River, J. Picard, June 16, 1913; Shelter Bay, W. H. Carter, June 1, 1916; Clarke City, F. W. Clarke, June 15, 1916; Seven Islands, F. H. Vigneault, July 31, 1912; Moisie, Ludger Poelier, June 15, 1906; Riviere Matamek, Mrs. Andre Hamilton, January 1, 1917; Pigou River, Mrs. Peter Wright, June 1, 1917; Rivieres aux Graines, M. Langlois, January 1, 1904; Sheldrake, Mrs. A. Girard, December 22, 1908; Thunder River, M. Blaney, October 1, 1890; Dock, Romain Grenier, October 1, 1914; Magpie, Charles Poirier, May 1, 1902; Riviere St. John, Benj. Chambers, September 1, 1877; Long Point of Mingan, J. T. Vibert, July 1, 1907; Mingan, Chas. Maloney, June 18, 1914; Esquimaux Point, Mrs. C. Cyr, September 1, 1907.


OLEOMARGARINE.
Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a measure at this session to permit the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine after the 3-lst of August, 1920, and the sale of oleomargarine after March 1, 1921, the limit of the exemption fixed by the Oleomargarine Act, 1919?


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE:: Yes.
R.CiM. POLICE-WALTER DUNCAN.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is Walter Duncan, of Toronto, in the employ of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	If so, what salary does he receive?
3.	Is he a returned soldier?
4.	What was the amount of salary paid this man during the year 1919?
5.	What was the amount of travelling expenses paid this man during the year 1919?
6.	If still employed in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, what position is he holding?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$210.65 per month.
3.	No.
4.	$2,276.03.
5.	$2,276.19.
6.	Special agent.


DOMINION SEED GRAIN PURCHASING COMMISSION.
Mr. GOULD:: 1.	Is the declaration of the Seed Commissioner (given before a meeting of the Seed
Growers' Association at Ottawa) that the services of the Dominion Government Seed Grain Purchasing Commission would be dispensed with after this year correct?	.
2.	If so, what is the reason for dispensing with such services?
3.	Does the Government propose to appoint another person or body to carry on the work formerly done by the said Commission? .
4.	Has the Government got satisfactory evidence that seed firms have sufficient capital and elevator and cleaning facilities to handle the seed grain requirements of the country?
5.	If the Government abolishes the Seed Grain Commission is it going to take any action to prevent the municipalities and farmers being at the mercy of the seed houses and supply elevators with respect to the price, grade and weight of seed?
Hon. 8. F. TOLMIE:
1.	The statement at the Seed Commissioner was in effect that the operations of the Seed Purchasing Commission had been discontinued in Eastern Canada and would probably be discontinued in the west of Canada as soon as commerce in grain became decontrolled.
2.	The principal officers of the Seed Purchasing Commission have been employees of the Seed Branch staff for many years, and it is not the intention to dispense -with their services. It is believed that under normal conditions of trade and of seed supply the merchandising of the established grades for seed grain is not a proper function of a government. The services of the men who compose- the Seed Purchasing Commission are needed in the work of encouraging the production and distribution of the higher grades of pure seed stocks for domestic requirements and for export.
3.	No.
4.	Inasmuch as grades for seed grain have been established by law and the service of inspection has been and will continue to be provided, the merchandising of seed grain of the established grades has been and doubtless will continue to be conducted by grain merchants as well as seed merchants. There is satisfactory evidence that they have sufficient capital for that purpose. The Canadian Government elevators are available to them on the same basis of charges as to the Seed Purchasing Commission.
5.	It is proposed to continue to provide the service of inspection and otherwise co-operate with and assist farmers' co-operative organizations in all of the provinces, as well as private seed and grain merchants, in their endeavour to merchandise and distribute supplies of seed grain of the best quality available in Canada, so that the cost for distribution may be reduced to a minimum commensurate with efficient ser-

vice. If and when seed shortage should arise because of unfavourable climatic conditions or other causes, such as happened during the past year in the Prairie Provinces, special action may be taken to meet such emergency.


LEAGUE OP NATIONS.
*Mr. ANDREWS:: Does the failure of America to join the League of Nations affect Canada's interests?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member's question is so general in its terms that it is difficult to know just what information he desires. If he will indicate specifically, any matter he has in view, I shall endeavour to answer him. All one can say to the general question is that of course the fact that the United States has not so far joined the League does lessen the power and moral authority of the League to accomplish the purposes for which it was formed, and in that sense all the members of the League are affected.
It is impossible to give even an approximate estimate of the value of this land as a large proportion of it is unsurveyed and has not yet been explored except in a very partial way.


MR. M. E. NICHOLS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Is M. E. Nichols, formerly Director of Public Information, still in the Government's employ?
2.	If so, what is his position, what are his duties, and what salary is he being paid?
3.	Has he, within the last twelve months, been employed by or consulted by the Postmaster General or any of the Post Office Department officials in regard to the rates of postage on newspapers, and if so, with what results ?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Director of Information, Department of External Affairs. Salary, $5,000 per annum.
3.	No.


DOMINION LANDS IN WEST.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: "What acreage of Dominion lands other than school lands remain unsold In each of the Western Provinces and the territories of the Northwest, with approximate value of same?"


Hon. Mr. MEIGBEN:: As only a small proportion of Dominion lands has been disposed of by sale, and as with the exception of school lands very little of it is being sold at the present time, it has been assumed that the word "unsold" in the above question means lands undisposed^ of.
Surveyed and Unsurveyed.
119,000,000 acres
85.500.000	acres
96.900.000	acres
6,350,000	acres
773,000,000 acres
Area undisposed of in
Manitoba, approx	
Area undisposed of in Saskatchewan, approx. Area undisposed of in
Alberta, approx	
Area undisposed of in British Columbia Railway Belt, approx	
Area undisposed of in Northwest Territories, approx	t ..
Total	1,080,750,000 acres
In compiling the above figures it has been considered advisable to exclude land entered for but unpatented, also Indian reserves, forest reserves and parks, as this land, although in the Crown, is not available for disposal.


COST OF THE SENATE.
Mr. PECK:: What is the annual cost of the Senate of Canada, as follows;	(1) indemnity of hon.
senators: (2) travelling expenses of same; (3) administration expenses of Senate; (4) any other expenses?
Sir HENRY DRAYTON;
1.	Indemnity ninety-six senators, $240,-
000.
2.	Transportation expenses, 1919, ,$4,883.25.
3.	Administration expenses, including salaries and contingencies, 1919, $113,416.50.
4.	Salary of Speaker, $4,000. Allowance for Speaker's residence, $3,000.
WATER POWERS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Mr. PECK:
1.	What amounts have been paid during the last eight fiscal years and up to February 1, 1920, by the Commission of Conservation, in any way, including field and office expenses, as well as for salaries of A. V. White and assistants, while engaged in connection with the publication recently issued by the commission entitled "The Water Powers of British Columbia "?
2.	What total amounts are still to he paid in connection with this publication?
3.	How many paper bound and how many cloth or otherwise bound copies of this report have been published for the commission?
4.	How many pages of the report contain data or information already published either by Canadian or United States departments?
5.	Was the permission of such departments obtained in every, case to the re-publishing of such material?


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE:: 1.	During the eight years ending February 1, 1920, Mr. A. V. White and assistants were engaged upon numerous important investigations including the British Columbia water powers, the diversion of water at Chicago by the Chicago sanitary district, development of power at Niagara, power possibilities of the St. Lawrence, Long Sault development, economic use of fuel, various electrical problems, St. Mary river (Alberta) diversion, St. Mary liver (Ontario) power question, St. Croix river dam, etc. Mr. White was also consulting engineer to the International Joint Commission. On some of these questions Mr. White is the highest authority in Canada. It is obviously impossible to allocate the proportion of costs of the various investigations upon which Mr. White has been employed.
Up to February 1, 1920, the Commission of Conservation expended $14,908.19 for field investigations and $12,566.79 for publication of the report on Water Powers of British Columbia.
2.	None.
3.	7,000 copies bound in paper and 2,000 bound in cloth.
4.	Owing to the illness of Mr. A. V. White, it is impossible to anwer this question. This publication is not only a report
-on the water powers of the province of British Columbia, but is also an encyclopaedic treatise on the general subject of water power development so far as it affects Canada and Canadian interests. Like all encyclopaedias, it contains in condensed form an admirable statement of the whole question, and includes all available information on the subject. In preparing it, the policy adopted by the Commission of Conservation from its very inception, namely, avoiding duplication of work done by any pther organization-governmental or private-was rigidly adhered to. In the United States and Canada it has been pronounced the best exposition of the waterpower question ever published in North America.
5.	When a government report is published, it becomes public property. Therefore, no permission was requested.


PICTOU EAST RIVER LOCK.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What was the total expenditure involved in the construction of lock in the East River of Pictou, near Trenton, N.S. ?
2.	Who designed this lock?
3.	Who inspected the wTork while in progress? If more than one inspector was employed, give names of each and period of employment and remuneration received?
4.	Has the contractor been paid in full?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$619,049.78.	*	*
2.	The Engineering branch of the Department of Public Works.
3.	Mr. A. T. Stronesh one of the Assistant Engineers of the District Engineer's staff at Antigonish. Salary $1,500 per an-
4.	Yes.
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION. Mr. JOHNSTON:
1.	How many immigrants entered Canada during the year 1918?
2.	How many emigrants left Canada during the year 1918?
3.	How many immigrants entered Canada during the year 1919?
4.	How many emigrants left Canada during the year 1919?
5.	How many immigrants entered Canada during the months of January and February, 1919?
6.	How many emigrants left Canada during the months of January and February, 1919?
7.	How many immigrants entered Canada during the months of January and February, 1920?
8.	How many emigrants left Canada during the months of January and February, 1920?
9.	Total immigration into Canada from year 1891 to December 31, 1919?
10.	Total emigration from Canada from y&Jir 1891 to December 31, 1919?


Arthur Meighen: tj*-'
1.	During the calendar year 1918, 50,270 immigrants entered Canada.
2.	The Department of Immigration and Colonization does not examine all outgoing passengers and is unable to supply the information asked.
3.	During the calendar year 1919, 117,633 immigrants entered Canada.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
5.	During January and February, 1919. 9,249 immigrants entered Canada.
6.	See answer to No. 2.
7.	During January and February, 1920, 8,816 immigrants entered Canada.
8.	See answer to No. 2.
9.	From January 1, 1891 to December 31, 1919, 3,730,521 immigrants entered Canada.
10.	No statistics of emigration are available.


CANADA HIGHWAYS ACT.
Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	What is the general policy of the Department of Railways as regards the nature of "construction" or "improvement" necessary to entitle any particular road to a grant, under the Canada Highways Act?

2.	Have the plans for an "improved" highways between Ottawa and Prescott been filed with the Department ot Railways and Canals? If so, when?
3,	Have the Ottawa-Prescott Highway plans been approved? If so, what is the nature of the specifications?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The general policy of the Department of Railways and Canals as regards the nature of "construction" or "improvement" necessary to entitle any particular road to a grant under the Canada Highways Act is set forth in the regulations giving effect to the objects and purposes thereof, as promulgated in the Canada Gazette on December 13, 1919.
2.	The general map required by the regulations, of the proposed programme of a system of highways for Ontario, including the highway between Ottawa and Prescott, in all about 1,824 miles, was submitted to the department on the 16th of March, 1920. No final plans of the proposed type or description of the "construction" or "improvement" to be adopted in building a highway between Ottawa and Prescott have been filed in the department.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER POWER DEVELOPMENT.
*Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Did the Acting Secretary of State for Ex-nal Affairs write a letter to C. A. Magrath, airman of the Canadian Section of the International Joint Commission on January 21, 1920, stating that the Governments of Canada and of the United States had referred to the International Joint Commission certain questions relating to Power Development and Canalization of the St. Lawrence river?
2.	In the said letter was it stated that each of the said Governments would appoint from "its official engineering personnel" an engineer to collect data and prepare plans and estimates?
3.	Has such an engineer been appointed by the Canadian Government?
4.	If not, have any representations been made to the Government urging the appointment of an engineer outside "its official engineering personnel"?
5.	Has the making of an appointment been delayed by conflicting representations on behalf of engineers not in the Government service?
6.	When will an appointment be made?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	5, and 6. Answered by No. 3.


METABETCHOUAN POSTMASTER.
*Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a certain Geoige Perron has made a complaint against the postmaster at Metabetchouan, during the summer of 1918?

2.	If an inquiry was held, what was the result ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 1 and 2. A letter signed "Georges Perron," dated the 19th January, 1918, complaining as to the management of the Metabetchouan Post Office was reoeived at the department. On inquiry it was ascertained that this letter was not written by Mr. George Perron, but by his son, Mr. George Emile Perron. Mr. GeoTge Perron, on being questioned by the Post Office Inspector at Quebec, who investigated the matter, stated that he could not accept the letter in its entirety and that the only complaints he had to proffer were regarding misdelivery of letters and newspapers. Suitable instructions were issued to the postmaster with a view to preventing similar irregularities jn the future.


WAR MEDALS.
Mr. MANION:: 1.	Has the Government any information to give the House as to the medals which are to be given in the late war?
2.	If so, what is the intention?
i. Does the Government intend giving any recognition in the form of a medal for service in Canada to those men who did not get overseas ?	i
4.	When will a complete announcement be made?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: '
1.	Yes.
2.	The following medals have been authorized by His Majesty the King-(a) 1914 Star; (b) 1914-15 Star; (c) British War Medal; (d) Victory Medal. Of these, 75 per cent of (a) and (b) have been issued to .those members and ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force entitled thereto; none of the remainder have been Received to date.
( 3. The matter is under consideration.
4.	The terms governing the issue of medals have been published in Routine Orders as they are received from the Imperial Authorities, and copies are sent to the press for circulation.


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
. *Mr. CASGRAIN:
1.	When is the Government going to take up the control and operation of the Quebec and Saguenay railway?
2.	When is a daily train service going to be reinstated on the said railway from Quebec to Murray Bay?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. As soon as the contractors complete the ballasting of the line and other improvements now under way.

2. As soon as the passenger and freight traffic on the line will warrant a daily train service, it will be put on.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Government through the Department of Railways and Canals or the Canadian National Railways received petitions requesting the building of certain stations and sidings at different places along the Quebec and Saguenay railway?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to grant said requests? If not, why?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No, but the matter of additional siding and station accommodation is under consideration.
2.	Answered by Number 1.


STEAMER &quot;CHAMPLAIN.&quot;
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the Dominion Government steamer "Champlain" has been prevented several times last winter from making her journey from Murray Bay to Tadoussac on account of lack of coal?
2.	Is it true that the shortage of coal was due to the fact that the necessary orders for the same were not placed properly by the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Quebec?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


RIVIERE DU GOUFFRE.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Government issued an Order in Council last year, declaring the RiviOre du Gouffre, at Baie St. Paul, County of Charlevois, P.Q., a navigable river and ordering the Baie St. Paul Lumber Company to demolish certain of its works along the said river?
2.	If so, what is the date on which said Order in Council was issued and the number of same?
3.	Has the Government passed. this year another Order in Council cancelling the previous one made last year in respect of the same matter?
4.	If so, why?
5.	What is the date on which the said Order in Council was passed and what is the number of same?


Hon. Mr. REID :: 1.	An Order in Council was passed approving of certain works already existing and to be constructed in the Riviere du Gouffre by the Baie St. Paul Lumber Co., on condition that the company provide an opening and maintain a clear channel for navigation.
2.	3rd March, 1919, number 456.
3.	Yes.
4.	Non-fulfilment of conditions set forth in previous Order in Council approving plans of the dam, notwithstanding the repeated notices to the company by the Department of Public Works.
5.	5th March, 1920, number 488.


ST. JOACHIM POSTMASTER.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is it true that the postmastership at St Joachim, County of Montmorency, P.Q., is presently vacant? If so, since when?
[Mr. Casgrain.l
2.	Does the Government intend to fill this vacancy?
3.	Is the appointment to be made soon?
4.	If not, why?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 1, 2, 3 and 4. There was a vacancy in the postmastership of St. Joachim, county of Montmorency, P.Q., but instructions have been given for a new appointment.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - EMPLOYEES.
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Civil Service Commission?
2.	How many are males?
3.	How many are females?
4.	How many males are French?
5.	How many females are French?
6.	How many males are Protestants?
7.	How many females are Protestants?


George Green Foster: In answer to questions 4, 5, 6, and 7, no records are kept in the department. The remainder will stand as an order for return.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Civil Service Commission?
2.	How many are males?
3.	How many are females?


Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	How many Civil Service investigating commissions were appointed since the 1st of January, A.D. 1895?
2.	On what respective dates were said commissions appointed, what number of commissioners comprised each board, what were their names and their home addresses?
3.	How long was each board engaged on such inquiry and how much was paid to each?
4.	Is there any board or, any member of a past or present board now engaged in connection with the Civil Service inquiry or classification of the Civil Service, other than the regular Civil Service Commission of which Honourable Doctor Roche is the Chairman?
5.	What amount or amounts were paid by the Government to the Civil Service Classification Commissioners during the time from 1st January, 1916, to and including the 15th of March, A.D. 1920, what amounts were paid to each of the said Classification Commissioners and on what dates?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1. How much, if any, of the Federal Emergency Fund for the re-establishment of the returned soldier was overpaid or inadvertently paid to those not entitled to it under the regulations?
1122

2.	How much of this amount has been recovered ?
3.	How many prosecutions have been instituted for this recovery?
4.	What has been the decision in each case?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to undertake any further action in cases of this nature?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. PAPINEAU (for Mr. Casgrain):: For a copy of all documents, letters telegrams and all other papers and correspondence relating to the use of the Customs Department as a disciplinary agency against Canadian paper manufacturers, showing how, when and why an embargo was placed upon the exportation of newsprint paper manufactured by some of the mills. Also a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government and' the State Department at Washington and the Foreign Office in London in this regard, documents and correspondence in regard to the resignation of Mr. R. A. Pringle, K.C., as Commissioner and Paper Controller, and as to the appointment of Mr. R. W. Breadner as Paper Controller, his visit to Fort Francis Ontario, and his subsequent release from the Controllership upon his return. Also all documents and correspondence in regard to the employment by the Board of Commerce of Mr. J. L. McNichol to assist in paper control, and the reasons for his dismissal or resignation.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: For a return showing the quantity of post office books, stationery and other postal supplies issued in Ottawa, through the Postal Stores Branch of the Post Office Department, from January 1, 1918, to April 1, 1920, and showing where printed* when, and by whom, showing also in detail, and separately, the cost of said supplies and transportation to their respective destinations.


Mr. CHISHOLM (for Mr. Fielding):: For a Return showing at the end of the fiscal year 1910 and each subsequent year the total assets of Canada, the amount received in each year as interest or other income from such assets, and the average rate of interest or other income so received in each year.


Louis Joseph Papineau: For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams and all other papers and correspondence exchanged between the Government or any department or commission thereof and the Government of the United States, the State of New York, the State of Vermont, or any other body, and a copy of any evidence given before any commission, referring to seine or net fishing in Mississiquoi river.


Louis Joseph Papineau: For a copy of all reports, letters, memos, correspondence, plans and specifications relative to the construction of a bridge on the Bajtis-can river, in the parish of St. Francois Xavier of Batiscan, in the county of Champlain.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.- PENSION STATUS OF STRIKING EMPLOYEES.

Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, immediate steps should be taken by the committee

in charge of the operations of the Grand Trunk and associated railways to restore the pension status of all men employed by the said railways who were penalized for taking part in any strike, by having their pension standing reduced, and that it be an instruction to the Arbitrators in connection with the taking over of the Grand Trunk from the company to take into consideration as a debt of the company the amount required to make good these pensions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in bringing this matter before the House I feel that the time is opportune for its discussion, because any question of this kind should be dealt with before the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company is adopted by Parliament.
This is the old story of the troubles between the employees of the Grand Trunk and the company. In 1910 all the men employed on the Grand Trunk went out on strike, demanding higher pay. It will not be necessary for me to go into the details of that strike, except to say that a settlement was effected through the then Minister of Labour, the present leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King), in conjunction with the chiefs of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The understanding arrived at, as laid down in a letter written by the then Minister of Labour, was that the employees should all be restored to their previous standing and that they should receive an advance in wages. Shortly after the matter had been settled, the time came for some of the employees to leave the service of the company, and when they did so they were informed that the break in the continuity of their service which occurred during the strike debarred them from receiving pensions.
This matter of pensions as pertaining to the employees of the Grand Trunk Railway system has been discussed in the House on many occasions, but as the House is now composed largely of new members, very few hon. members present are familiar with the discussions which took place. Almost from time immemorial the Grand Trunk Railway Company has had a provident fund. Into that fund the company paid certain amounts, and they were thereby supposed to be relieved from liability to the employees of the road. On January 10, 1900, a man named Richard Ramsden, was killed while in the service of the company. Action was taken on behalf of the widow and her four children, who claimed negligence on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The company set up the defence that a clause in the Penion Fund Act relieved them from any liability for damages. The case was heard in Montreal by the present Minister of

Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty) who held that according to the Quebec Civil Code a man could not contract his wife and children out of any claim for damages in the case of his being killed while in the service of the company. That is to say, while he might enter into a contract or agreement doing away with any claim for damages as a result of accident to himself, he could not do away with the right of action on the part of his heirs should he be killed while in the service of the company. Accordingly judgment was given for the widow and four children in the amount of six thousand dollars. The case went to the Privy Council and the decision was Confirmed by that body. Then, in 1907, a Bill was introduced into this House, the purpose of which was to renew this provident fund in the shape of a pension fund and to permit of the company's making' rules and regulations with regard thereto. Provision was made that if the Grand Trunk paid so much annually into that fund they would be relieved from liability. That Bill was discussed at length in the House. The late member for South Simcoe, Mr. Lennox, moved an amendment which, however, was not carried, and the Bill was adopted. The company thereupon proceeded to establish this pension fund. At the time of the setr tlement of the trouble between the company and the men in-1910, nothing was said about this fund. But the understanding was set forth in the following telegram sent by the then Minister of Labour:
Mr. Hays has given Sir Frederick Borden and myself an undertaking that the men will within three months from this date, be taken back into service and within that time be placed in their former positions. We understand by the men all the men referred to in the agreement signed by both parties. In accordance with our understanding I shall expect to hear by wire immediately that the strike has been declared at an end. I will confirm this wire by letter over my own signature.
The position of Mr. Kelley, vice-president of the road, was set forth as follows:-
In the matter of the questions submitted for settlement with this company.
The following agreement will be the basis for the adjustment of the various questions at issue:-
1.	Employees in train and yard service who remained with company during the strike period, and those who took service with the company during that period and who are now in the service of the company, shall retain their respective seniorities as now listed.
2.	Employees who participated in the strike, but who were re-employed and have since been continuously in the employ of the company shall be placed in seniority standing with respect to each o'her in the same standing as existed before July L7th, 191*0, but this shall not affect
the position or seniority standing of those employees mentioned in Article 1.
Based upon the above a new seniority list will be made out at once and the various positions adjusted in accordance therewith.
In other words, those who remained with the company during the strike were put on the Class A senior list, and those who went out and were reinstated were given the same standing as to seniority that they had before, save as respects those who had remained with the company. It will be noticed that no mention is made in that communication of the pension fund.
Now, one of the regulations made by the Grand Trunk in connection with this pension fund was that any employee of the company might be laid off upon reaching the age of 65 years. Since the strike somb 18 conductors, many of whom had been 40 or 50 years in the employ of the company, have been laid off, and a number of them find themselves with very little money and without anything to do. The men claim that the substantial amount which the Grand Trunk Railway Company paid from time to time into this pension fund is virtually a portion of their wages that it was one of the conditions of their employment that they should have a claim on that fund. Now, this question will have to be settled within a very short time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the men setting forth the conditions of this fund?


John Allister Currie: There is no agreement.
The Act sets forth the right of the company to establish this fund, in which the men shall participate. It will be found in the Statutes of 1907. The amount paid into the fund is a first charge of the earnings of the company; it is not an amount which may be paid after the settlement of other debts; really it is a first call on the earnings of the road, and that amount paid into this pension fund is really part of the wages of the men who consider that, having contributed for many years indirectly to this fund, they are entitled to their fair share-of the amount when they leave. The ground taken by the Grand Trunk Railway Company- is this. They claim that the men have broken their continuity of service; and as one of the rules of the pension fund was that the men must be continuously in service in order to participate in it, they claim that the men, having broken that rule, are technically not entitled to anything. There is no doubt in the world that, on the face of the matter and according to

all rules of justice, these men are entitled to their pension and their status in this pension fund. This technicality which is claimed against them is a matter over which they had no control; that is to say, the Grand Trunk authorities, not the men, made the rules and regulations, the result of this rule being that the men have been deprived of their right to a portion of this pension fund. The money being there, the men having contributed to it indirectly during all these years, and the question now coming before the Government in the form of an agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I consider that it is only fair and right that these men should be given their proper status in this pension fund and that those who have gone out should be given their rights as well. Some eighteen of these men, some of whom have been conductors of this road for nearly fifty years, have been forced out; these men, who have been honest and upright, have not been able to do more than keep themselves and their families respectably, and they find themselves at sixty-five years of age compelled to accept menial employment on the road, some of them handling gates at level crossings. It is a shame that these men, who have given all their lives to the road, who have for many years served the Grand Trunk Railway Company for from ten to twenty per cent lower wage than are paid by any other railway in America, should now, on account of the railway company taking advantage of a technicality, be deprived of what is in reality their right. The agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government will be before the House in a few days, and it will be time for the Government to make such an amendment to that agreement as to restore the status of these men and set aside the technical objection taken by Mr. Kelley to their receiving their proper due.
This case where the family got $4,000 damages out of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is only one case of many that might have been brought against the road, cases where men were killed by reason of negligence on the part of the road. It was a great advantage to the railway company to be able to evade damages through this pension fund. About 15 per cent of the men in Canada are employed on the railways-and I feel sure that the country at large is in sympathy with this motion. The decision of the Government should be that this question should be a tMr. Currie.]
subject of discussion before the agreement is finally settled, and now is the time to settle the matter. The railway company in making their settlement with the Government will, no doubt, deduct that amount that should come to these conductors, in that way adding so much to what will go into the pocket of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk, whereas, as a matter of fact, that amount should be replaced in the fund and these men who have been forced out, who have not left of their own accord, should be restored and pensions given to them. I happen to know a number of these men and they are very excellent men who have given all their lives to this road, and have helped to build it up to be a great road. They have made great sacrifices; if they had left the Grand Trunk and taken service with other Canadian roads or United States roads, they would have received far more money to start with and also just as fair a pension as the Grand Trunk would give them. For that reason I would ask the House to support this resolution; or, if the Government is willing to give some understanding that the matter will be discussed and that justice will be done to these men, I shall be prepared to withdraw the motion after having placed the matter before the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House brings up again a subject that has received the attention of Parliament on a number of occasions. The hon. member for 'Simcoe has referred to the circumstances that in 1910 during the strike of the Grand Trunk Railway employees, I was one of those who intervened in an endeavour to bring about a settlement. The hon. member is quite correct in what he says. The men had been on strike for, I think, about a week after an investigation had been held by a board appointed under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Had the Grand Trunk Rail-way Company accepted the finding of that board, the strike would not have occurred; but the employees had reason to believe that the finding of the board was not acceptable to the company and the strike tpok place. After the men had been out for a week,-I am not sure at the moment whether the request came from the employees of the company or whether action was taken by the Government of its own initiative-I went to Montreal to see if it were not possible to bring about a conference between the employees and the management of the company. The

late Sir Frederick Borden, who was then Minister of Militia in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Cabinet was in Montreal at that time, and together we were successful in having the management of the Grand Trunk Railway Company meet with representatives of the two railroad brotherhoods affected by the strike, who were also in Montreal The conferences were held in the offices of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They were conferences between the president of the company and certain of his officials and the two presidents of the railroad brotherhoods affected, the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and the Order of Railway Conductors. In this connection there is just one point that I should like to make quite clear, it is that, as regards the terms of the settlement, those terms were reached as the result of a discussion between the parties to the dispute. Neither 'Sir Frederick Borden nor myself had anything to do with the agreement as drawn up; what we succeeded in doing was to bring together the parties to the dispute, we were present in the room while the negotiations between the parties were taking place and consented to act as witnesses in regard to matters which were discussed at that time should they become subjects of controversy at any time in the future. As I remember the occasion, after a good deal of discussion, an agreement was finally reached which was acceptable to both parties with the exception of one point which was not wholly satisfactory. The company were to reinstate all the employees who had gone out on strike, and who had not been guilty of any act of violence. In presenting their side of the case the company used the words "as soon as possible." The employees' representatives asked the company what they meant by the words "as soon as possible," and it was with the greatest difficulty that the president of the company could be prevailed upon to give any interpretation at all. I remember the negotiations very well. At the end of an evening's discussion, the whole matter was nearly thrown back into the open on account of a refusal by the company to give any interpretation of those words. Both Sir Frederick Borden and I at the. time took a decided stand * in regard to their interpretation We said that we thought the company ought to say in explicit language what it meant, name a definite period of weeks, of months, or years, so as to give some finality to the terms. It was finally agreed by the president of the company that "as soon as possible" would mean within three months. It was either that or three weeks.


John Allister Currie: Three months.
Mr. MACKEipiE KING: I think so. The president asked that with that understanding the words be permitted to remain in the agreement as drafted; in other words, that the agreement should go out to the public that all the men would be reinstated as soon as possible, with the assurance given to the heads of the railroad brotherhoods, that "as soon as possible" meant no longer than a period of three months. Had the Grand Trunk Railway Company carried out that part of its agreement, this subject would probably never have become one of further controversy; but for reasons best known to the company itself, they did not reinstate the men within three months, nor within three years so far as some of the men were concerned. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the conduct of the company in that particular was inexcusable; it was unpardonable; it was arbitrary; it was everything that I regard as unfortunate in the relations between companies and their employees. However, the company did not reinstate the men in accordance with the understanding, and in this Parliament, at a previous session, I stated just what I am stating now, that the agreement was that the men should be reinstated within a period of three months.
As to the question of status, as the mover of the resolution (Mr. Currie) has just said, the language of the settlement is embodied in the agreement as drawn at the time. I have not a copy of the agreement' here, but I think its language was such as to leave no doubt that the men were to be placed in the same positions they had had before- certainly thht their standing and status was to be the same.
As to the specific question of pensions, I do not recollect that subject being discussed. I think it was not discussed. The question of pensions was certainly not mentioned in my hearing between the parties at the conferences, but my own personal belief is this: If an employee of a company has been contributing to a pension fund or if part of a company's obligations towards him is to pay a pension based on the period of service given, his status would certainly be affected if that pension were not conceded, and I think in this matter there is full obligation upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company to see that the men are given their pensions. There may be some technical question of law which officers of the company may be wishing to take advantage of in order to escape the payment of pensions. If that is the ease, I would say that there

is something very much higher than law, and that is moral obligation, and if there ever was an obligation on the part of any company to discharge a duty, there is certainly a moral obligation on the Grand Trunk Railway Company to see that every man who is entitled to a pension under the contract as it then existed between the company and its employees receives such pension. I would go further and say that while I do not think that the intervention of Sir Frederick Borden and myself in helping to bring about the settlement which was ulti-. mately effected places any obligation of a legal kind on this Parliament or upon the Government one way or the other, I do think that any word of ours, or either of us, ought to carry some weight in an expression as to what is owing to employees of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in this connection. I feel that if a company through any legal technicality leaves its employees with a sense of injustice and of wrong done, that kind of behaviour is only helping to promote industrial unrest and to destroy confidence in the relations between the parties to industry; and where the Government directly or indirectly has any knowledge of proceedings of that kind, it seems to me it is the duty of the Government to do all in its power to see that obligations are lived up to in an honourable way. I know that so long as Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Government was in power, every effort was made by the late Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues to. see that the Grand Trunk did reinstate its employees, and I know that it was impossible to g^t the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry out that part of its obligation, apart altogether from the question of pensions. I think my successor in the office of Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) whom I see opposite, tried equally hard to get the Grand Trunk Railway Company to reinstate certain of its employees, and was met with equal difficulty in getting the company to carry out that part of their agreement. The behaviour of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in that connection was wholly inexcusable and unpardonable. I cannot use language too emphatic to express the feelings of indignation I had at that time and have ever since entertained towards the company for behaving towards their employees in the way they did, and if any opinion expressed by any member of this House can be the means of having the Board of Arbitration that is now dealing with the liabilities of the Gxand Trunk Railway Company consider the obligation which is rest-
ing upon the company to make good its undertaking to the men in the mat-4 p.m. ter of their pensions, I feel that such expression should be given in the most emphatic terms. Speaking as a member of Parliament, so far as I am concerned, and I think all hon. gentlemen sitting on this side of the House will agree with me, I think that in so far as the voice of this Parliament can carry any weight in getting simple, honest justice done to the employees of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in this matter of their pensions, that voice should be given its fullest expression.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin):: 
Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, during the past year I have had occasion to take up with officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company the question of the pension that the employees who have been superannuated think they ought to receive. It does seem to me that on the statement that was made at that time, and when you read the memoranda appended to that statement, there can be no question .about the fact that in so far as the men were concerned they were perfectly well satisfied that under the terms of the arrangement the promise was made by the authorities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that the status of the men, even of those who had struck, should be reestablished and there is no doubt that in their minds they thought that such status meant that they should be restored to their original' rights. It means that and nothing else. It means that they were to go back to the status formerly held by them and if a man goes back to the status formerly held by him his status shall be as it was prior to the time that the event which gave rise to the controversy took place. What was their status? They were employed along the line as conductors or otherwise and their status entitled them to a certain amount of retiring allowance. Therefore I submit to the House in all fairness and on a reading of the section or the agreement that the men, at the time they went back, were convinced that their status, in the fullest sense of the word, would be restored to them.
I do not think in so far as the Grand Trunk authorities were concerned, they did not act in the good faith that a large corporation of that kind might be expected to display
towards their men when they did return to work as has been said by the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers),' it is perfectly true that before the Grand Trunk would agree to carry out a hard and fast agreement, or to restore these men to their positions, they had to be taken by the throat in the way of deferring legislation by this House. If under the circumstances this House, through its committee, had to so / hold up legislation until certain terms that were to have been agreed to were carried out, I want to ask if it is not a perfectly clear inference for the House and the Government to draw that having once gone back practically on the terms that they themselves agreed to, and having only been brought under these terms by force, they are in the same Way to-day misinterpreting the meaning of the word "status and standing purely on the technical feature of the Act.
There is something further to be remembered and here I am obliged to differ from my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) when he says that they indirectly contributed. I say that these men directly contributed to the fund. Is it to be said that this House to-day, speaking for the people of Canada, are prepared, through a technicality, to take into the coffers of the Dominion, money that was extracted from these railway employees in order to enrich ourselves? It does not seem equitable ot just, and as the hon. member for North Simcoe has well said, now that the time has come for the purchase of the Grand Trunk railway by the Dominion, it is perfectly proper that this fund should be taken into consideration and that the matter should be adjusted as in all honesty it was intended to be adjusted and as the Grand Trunk railway men themselves thought it was being adjusted.
Let me give you one instance which came under my observation and perhaps the facts of the case will appeal more strongly than any argument that I could put before this House. There was Solomon E. Finch, railway conductor of Sarnia. What was his record?' It is given in this memorandum. He entered the service of the Grand Trunk on the 23rd January, 1871, and he stayed in the service of the company until the 31st December, 1917. That man struck and was out for one week. The facts came under my own personal observation and I brought them to the attention of the authorities at Montreal. He was an old and influential conductor on the Grand Trunk. The authorities came from Montreal to

Sarnia and enlisted his good offices in order to endeavour to get the men to go back to work. He did give his good offices and he was to a large extent responsible for the settlement of the strike at that point. He did everything he could for the benefit of the company and yet, forsooth, although that man would have been entitled under ordinary circumstances to a pension of $600 a year, and although he is 73 years of age, because he struck and was out for one week, he has not got one single dollar in the way of pension from the Grand Trunk. In all seriousness I ask the Government to take this matter into consideration. If you propose in these days of unrest to preserve harmony and good feeling between employer and employee, if above all you desire to maintain good feeling between the roads that are now being operated by the Government and the employees of those roads, you must start off in a proper way. Although the position of these men may not in every particular be strictly and legally correct I would ask you if when you start off under these new auspices you will be acting in the public interest by endeavouring to get away from your moral responsibility? I say you will not. Therefore if the morals of this case are right and if that right is on the side of the men the very first thing the Government should do is, not to look to the legal technicality, but to consider the equity of the case and to set an example in the way of carrying out agreements.
It will give me the greatest pleasure to support the resolution and I do so most heartily. I think the Government should not pass this off merely by saying this is an old agreement of the Grand Trunk, it has nothing to do with us, we are coming in under a new regime and the railways are to be owned by the Government. I think it is the bounden duty of the Government, not only in their own interest, if I may be permitted to say so, but in the interest of the country, in the interest of labour, in the interest of settling the unrest that is to-day abroad in the country and in the name of all that is highest and best to endorse this claim as being based on high moral grounds and to say that as a consequence these pensions should be restored, that these men should receive the benefit of what has come out of their own pockets and that the country should not benefit to the least extent by taking money from workingmen for the purpose of enriching itself.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North. Perth):: I am very much pleased indeed to see what apparently is a complete unanimity on both sides of the House on this subject. With regard to the phraseology of the agreement that was read by the leader of the Opposition, it would appear to me that that agreement was intended to settle everything in the way of difficulty which then existed between the company and the workmen-in fact the agreement cannot be said to contain any language that would indicate anything else-it is a complete ana absolute agreement that the men who went on strike should 'be taken back and continued in the employ of the company. That language would cover the question of pensions, and the men were entitled to be restored to the pension list even if they had deprived themselves of the actual legal right of being so placed by leaving the employment of the company. The settlement reached was unequivocably made on such broad lines that the men were to be reinstated as of their former status.
Now, apart from the agreement referred to by the leader of the Opposition, what I may term the aftermath makes very interesting history. There were 138 men who claimed their ninety days' pay; and I think it is only fair for me-having direct knowledge of the situation-to point out that the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) spent what I would concede to be one of the most laborious days of his life in dealing with the gentlemen who were then at the head of the Grand Trunk organization, in order to get the company to pay those men; and to my own knowledge, he had the remarkable pleasure of seeing the cheques issued and handed to 93 of the conductors of the Grand Trunk railway throughout the Western Ontario district, after that arduous day's work. Doubtless he spent many equally arduous days previous to that, but I speak with personal knowledge of the one. Out of the 138, there were 93 men whom Judge Barron reported had not acted in violation of the law. It is only proper that I should make that statetment seeing that the ex-Minister of Labour himself has been a little modest about it. The question of law might be against the men, but the question of equity and justice is entirely in their favour; and I believe that the High 'Court of Parliament-if there is any court of equity in the British Empire-is the real exponent of equitable dealings between the King and the subject. Therefore, I would snap my fingers in this case at the law that provided that if a man left his employment

he should lose his right of being reinstated, or, if reinstated, should lose his right to a pension. The settlement gave him the right of absolute and full reinstatement, which included the pension, and everything, I believe, has been done by the Grand Trunk Company by way of payment to those entitled except this one thing. That, to my mind, is where the equity and good conscience of this Parliament must step in and lend its weight to the adjustment of the Grand Trunk Railway agreement in such a way that it will leave no heart burning and no feeling that advantage has been taken of any particular individual. . The cost involved being such a trifling matter, I think the sunshine that a desirable adjustment would bring to the workman's soul would be far more than recompense for any such cost. I have therefore much pleasure in strongly supporting the resolution and again expressing my gratification that both sides of the House look upon the matter in practically the same way.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: I am in hearty sympathy with the proposal. I have had considerable to do with gathering the material contained in this pamphlet which has been distributed to the members of the House, and I placed before the Minister of Railways substantially all the material that is contained therein, urging upon him the need of representing the claims of these men as a liability against the Grand Trunk. The minister gave me every assurance that he had already done that months ago. I now feel confident that he not only has accomplished that much, but that he has, in a forcible manner, laid *before the bo-ard who will have the decision in regard to the liabilities of the 'Grand Trunk the claims of these various conductors. I appreciate the action of the member for Simcoe in bringing the matter before the House, and I sincerely hope that when the liabilities of the Grand Trunk are taken into consideration the claims of these men will be fairly dealt with.


Mr. C. R. HARRISON (Nipissing):: I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution of the hon. member for Simcoe. I was glad indeed to hear the remarks of hon. gentlemen on both sides, especially those of the leader of the Opposition, because the latter was one of the parties responsible for bringing about the settlement of the trouble in 1910. I was on a committee of Canadian Pacific Railway conductors that was sitting in Montreal at the time of the dispute and we
were in joint session with the Grand Trunk Committee when the men went out on strike. When the men decided to go back to -work the Grand Trunk Company agreed to reinstate them in their former positions without any loss of status or seniority; there was no question then as to loss of the pension to which the men were entitled. Hon. members have before them the Grand Trunk pension rules. They contain no reference to any such happening in the event of a strike, nor is it anywhere said that those particular employes who took part in the strike are to forfeit their claims upon the pension fund. I can assure the House that those men did not go out on strike in any haste. The Grand Lodge officers were called in and they did everything they possibly could in order to prevent a strike; but the company, then undeT the management of the late Charles M. Hays, positively refused to give the men any consideration. At that time the Grand Trunk conductors, running side by side with Canadian Pacific conductors, were getting between $75 and $80 a month, whilst the Canadian Pacific conductors were in receipt of $130 a * month. The Grand Trunk men asked that their salaries be raised so as to equal those of the Canadian Pacific men, because they were boarding at the same hotels and incurring the same expense as the Canadian Pacific conductors, but to all their requests the Grand Trunk Company stood back and answered, No. However, the Hon. Mackenzie King, the present leader of the Opposition, and the late Sir Frederick Borden, met the company and the latter agreed to reinstate the me!n, and the	understanding was that they would be reinstated to their former positions without any loss of seniority or any of the privileges which they had gained by being in the employ of the company. This pamphlet contains letters from various conductors in the service of the company addressed to our Legislative Representative, Mr. L. L. Pelletier, of the Order of Railway Conductors. I do not want to detain the House by reading all these letters as hon. members have copies of the pamphlet before them, but I might draw their attention to cases of conductors who after being fifty-three years in the service of the company as passenger conductors were not drawing more than $75 to $80 a month, while men on other roads in the same territory were drawing $130 a month. Notwithstanding this great disparity in wages the company would not consider the complaints of their men.

As typical of the letters contained in this pamphlet I might quote one from a former Grand Trunk conductor. Writing to Mr. Pelletier on April 7, 1919, he states:
X entered the service as a brakeiman on the Nor. Railway in March, 1872, a conductor, May, 1876, and got a passenger train April, 1879, thrown out in the scrap heap December 31, 1918, on account of having reached the age limit according to G.T.R. rules <70 years) although I got a letter from the medical officer Of the company saying I was in good physical condition. I may say that during the 40 years 1 was in charge of passenger trains the company never had to pay a claim for a passenger injured or carried past on any train I was on. |The officials who I worked under had no fault to And for my work so far as they were concerned I might be working yet but the powers higher up in Montreal decided otherwise.
Hon. members will find dozens of letters in this pamphlet from conductors who have been even longer in the service than this nian.
It was stated by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Morphy) and by other hon. members that these claims against the Pension Fund of the Grand Trunk Railway Company should be treated as a liability of the company. Undoubtedly it was the understanding of the committee that the men were to be reinstated, and it is evident that that was the intention of the company, judging from the correspondence *that passed between us at the time. I pannot give the exact words, but the effect of the letter we received from the company *was that the men would be reinstated to their former status, with the exception of *those who had in any way interfered with the company's property. I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution.
Mr. WILLIAM A. BOYS (South Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the resolution moved by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), and at the same time to apologize for my unpreparedness at. its introduction. I had no idea that the matter was coming up today. It seems to me that one must- toe impressed by the justness of the men's case as it has been presented to us this afternoon from both sides of the House. As I understand the facts, the company received their authority by statute passed in 1907, and we find by section 7 of chapter 9 of the statutes of that year that the company was given this power:
The directors may make and adopt all such rules, by-laws and regulations not inconsistent with law as they deem proper and necessary for the due and efficient management, administration and disposition of the funds, and they may make rules and regulations regarding the same.

We find that regulations were made in accordance with that section, and I assume this pamphlet is accurate in its quotation of regulation 17, which will be found on page 3, in these terms:
Absence on leave, suspension or discharge, followed by reinstatement within a year, or temporary lay off on account of reduction of force, need not necessarily be considered as a break of continuity of service.
As I understand it the men were to be reinstated within three months, and an understanding was given to that effect. If that is so, one is forced to the conclusion that a financial obligation was incurred by the company, and it would seem to me that the appropriate remedy now is for the Board of Arbitrators to consider the matter, and if they find that such a financial obligation was incurred the company should be saddled with it in connection with the arbitration proceedings.
The men had been paying into the Pension Fund and there was an absolute agreement to reinstate them. According to that regulation, if !I read it correctly, there was no break ih the continuity of their service which would relieve the company from fulfilling its obligation. If this be the fact, one can hardly imagine upon what ground the company could seek to escape responsibility. Therefore, if there is any way of passing this on to the arbitrators as an instruction from the House of Commons that we regard the claim as a liability against the company-especially as the leader of the Opposition who apparently had a good deal to do with this matter tells us there was a distinct understanding that the company would reinstate the men to their former status-I certainly take great pleasure in allying myself with the mover and supporters of the resolution in order that the men may be protected and secured in their just claims.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is quite unnecessary to take up the time of the House in adding any further argument to the very excellent case that has already been made out in regard to this resolution. The facts appear to be admitted, and that being so, the only thing left to the House is to consider what remedy can be applied. I think our labouring people as well as hon. members are indebted to the hon. mdmber for Simcoe for bringing this matter before the House. I only regret that he or some other hon. member did not think proper to bring it

forward with the same force and logic last fall when we were dealing with the Grand Trunk agreement. It would then, I think, have been easier to deal with it than it may be now.
It does not appear to me that there can be any great difficulty in reaching a conclusion as to what was meant by the men being restored to their former status- which status carried with it certain pension rights. That was before the strike. After the strike the men were taken back on the distinct understanding that they were to be restored to that former status, and the refusal of the company to restore them is clearly a breach of faith. Two ministers of the Crown were present when the agreement was made for the purpose of being witnesses as to what was the real intention. There is no question at all as to the interpretation of the condition upon which the strike was settled. A question arose at one point as to whether or not some of the men had violated the law and thus put themselves beyond the pale. I understand that a commission concurred in by both parties, was appointed to ascertain who those men were, and that commission reported, giving the names of those who were and of those who were not entitled to be restored to their former status. Thereupon the company should have reinstated those who were found by the commission to be entitled to their former status.
As I understand it, the company refused to do that, thus standing in violation of contract and in lack of good faith. Any company which gets its powers from this Parliament has only such powers as this Parliament chooses to give it, and certainly one of the conditions of the bestowal of power in this case is good faith and adherence to contracts. We cannot, therefore, as a'Parliament be a party to unfairness or lack of good faith in the carrying out of agreements of this kind.
I concur in what has been so well said by other hon. members who have spoken on this question. But as a matter of law I do not think that we should pass on any instructions to the Board of Arbitrators. Should the board act upon any suggestion we might make and deduct a certain amount from the allowance determined upon as coming to the company, the company might very well come back with a petition of right asking that that part of the award be set aside. Last year we defined by statute what is to be submitted to arbitration, and from that statute the Board of Arbitrators 73
get their full authority; beyond it they cannot go. No moral suggestion which we might make would stand the test of law. I suggest, therefore, to my hon. friend and to the Government that consideration be given to that phase of the case.
I think we have precedent for submitting a resolution of this kind to a committee. It might go to the Railway Committee, or, if that committee is too large, to a special committee, before which all concerned in the matter might appear and tell their story. A report could then be made to the House as to what action should be taken. If this is not done, the only way we can deal with the matter is by introducing a special Act giving 'power to the Board of Arbitrators to regard the amount claimed in this connection as an obligation of the company and within the jurisdiction of the board.


John Allister Currie: (My hon. friend is dealing very profoundly with this question as a matter of law. Will he please point out any provision of the law setting forth that the amount claimed is not an obligation of the company?


Mr. McEENZIE:: I am not saying that
it is not an obligation; I say it is an obligation with which this board cannot deal.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member has not studied the matter. He is assuming that there is something in the Act appointing the Board of Arbitrators that would prevent them from taking this matter into consideration. I will at once withdraw the motion if he can point to one single word in that Act which bars the board from considering this claim as an obligation of the company. The hon. gentleman is making an argument out of whole cloth.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit to the Minister of justice and to the good lawyers in this House the question whether the Board of Arbitrators shall be bound by what is submitted to them. My good friend, who is a bright layman, knows what submissions are. A board of arbitration is bound absolutely by the submissions to it and in the submission to the Board of Arbitration with regard to the Grand Trunk there is nothing about this matter.


John Allister Currie: Quite the contrary; there is a submission to the arbitrators with regard to this pension scheme.
Mr. DEPUTY 'SPEAKER:	I must remind hon. members that the House is not in Committee.


Mr. BOYS:: Will my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) permit me a question? He eon-



tends that we should not send an instruction or suggestion-I prefer the word " suggestion "-to the arbitrators. Personally I think that his point is well taken, but does he see any objection to counsel for the Government presenting the evidence and then arguing that a financial obligation exists which the arbitrators might well take into consideration when determining what amount should be paid to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The point is still there. Some of the best lawyers in Canada will be engaged on that arbitration; a judge will be one of the arbitrators, and the points of law will be well threshed out. But the big lawyers will have to agree that the submission must govern. If we submit to arbitration the value of fifty acres of land, well defined, we cannot subsequently say that there is another ten acres which it will ibe well to value also. The arbitrators could not do anything of the kind; whatever is contained in the submission is the subject with which they must deal. I am anxious that this question should be settled, but I am anxious that it shall be properly settled. Under the present legislation the Board of Arbitrators has not the power to deal with it, and any finding which they might make with regard to it would not stand the test of law.
Mr. 1BOY1S:	The greater the obligations
of the company, the less the value of the stock. I do not see any objection to the course which I have suggested. Does my hon. friend see any?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Board of Arbitration is not a court of trial to ascertain how much this, that or the other thing is worth; they are to make a finding upon indisputable claims against the company. But the claim which we have been discussing has not been submitted to the Board; if it were submitted to them, of course they would have power to deal with it.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved, by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has been so fully discussed that it is scarcely necessary for me to say anything further. I rise simply for the purpose of associating myself with the object of the resolution and to agree that representations should be made by the Government and Parliament to the arbitrators who are dealing with the whole question of the value of the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to the effect that this is a liability of the Grand Trunk which that

company has so far refused to recognize. I would not for a moment presume to enter into any legal discussion whether the arbitrators had the legal right or not; but one of the things that the arbitrators must do is to determine what are the assets and what are the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and if this be a liability, it should be placed amongst them, and it is without question a liability. Morally and -I am again speaking as a layman- legally it is a liability.
Let me touch just for a moment on the merits of the claim of the Grand Trunk railway conductors that they should be given rights to which men in the employ of any other railway company would be entitled, and that they should have their pension rights as they had them before the strike of 1910. It has been suggested that, perhaps, the pensions are being withheld on account of some violation of the law on the part of some of the strikers; that the Grand Trunk Railway Company may be putting forward a claim that these men have been guilty of some violation of law, either interfering with the company's property or in some way endeavouring to prevent the running of trains by non-strikers and that sort of thing. But the company has not taken that position; the company has not even suggested that the men who have been denied pension rights, have been guilty of any of these acts whatever, and in support of that I will quote briefly from a letter written by an official of the company to one of its employees. Mr. Pennington, of Stratford, Ontario, who was retired by the officials of the company at sixty years of age on account of his physical inability to carry on his work, made application for a pension, and in response to his application, the superintendent wrote him as follows:
Referring- to your letter March 14 in regard to putting- you on pension fund. Did you participate in the Trainmen's strike of 1910? If so, I regret to say that you cannot participate in the benefits of the pension. The fact that you voluntarily left the service at that time and was out of service for two weeks debars you from that privilege, from the fact that any one participating in the pension must claim continuous service, while those who left the ser-vce on account of that strike have a broken service.
If one goes through the whole correspondence between the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its employees, the evidence is manifest that the officials were endeavouring to show, not that these men had violated any law, but simply that they were out of service, in the case of this

conductor Pennington, for two weeks, on account of this strike. If you refer then to the pension regulations themselves, article 17 states distinctly:
Absence on leave, suspension, or discharge, followed by reinstatement within a year, oi temporary lay oft on account of reduction of force need not necessarily be considered as a break of continuity of service.
To pass on from that to the practice in railway service wherever a pension system is in force, not only is it recognized that men do not break their continuity of service by reason of a strike causing their temporary withdrawal from the company's service, but if a man has been guilty of a violation of some rule, perhaps causing a serious accident through some mistake, and he ' may have been suspended for six or nine months as a punishment for that, and then reinstated, the railway companies recognize that that is not regarded as a break in continuity of service. So, the Grand Trunk Railway Company in putting forward this claim, is putting forward simply a slim excuse in order to get away from its moral and legal obligation, and in doing so, it is not only evading its responsibility, but confiscating what the men themselves have paid into the pension fund. To any one who has given thought to this matter or who has been in touch with what takes place between railway companies and their employees, the attitude of the Grand Trunk Railway Company towards its railway conductors and trainmen who participated in that strike of 1910 has been not only illegal, but the most immoral of which it has been my misfortune to have had any knowledge in my. experience of relations between railway companies and their employees. My opinion is simply this, that whether the Government and the Parliament of Canada passes this obligation on to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, where it properly belongs, or not, the Government must make up its mind that sooner or later these men must get their pensions, and that those who have been out of service, some of them for two or three or four years without any compensation whatever, must be compensated, and if the Government does not see to it that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company put up the money, then the people of Canada will have to put it up for them.
Mr. JOHN A. SEXSMITH (Peterborough East): Mr. Speaker, nothing that I could say at present would, perhaps, add anything to the debate that has already taken place, hut as seconder of the motion of the hon. member for Simco-e North (Mr. 731	'
Currie) I (wish to place myself on record as being entirely in sympathy with his motion. If, as we were told by the leader of the Opposition, who was at that time Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the hon. member who succeeded him as Minister of Labour, the Grand iTunk Railway Company agreed to take these men back .and reinstate them in their former positions and that they have since refused to do so, then the Grand Trunk Railway Company must certainly be under an obligation to these men. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) suggested that there might Jbe some technicalities in law, and that it might be necessary to have some special legislation. I wish to say to the minister that if he finds it impossible, without special legislation, to impress upon the arbitrators the necessity of making this an obligation,. then I (would be in favour of .bringing down legislation that would place .the Grand Trunk Railway Company in a .position where they would have to do pustioe .and give proper treatment to these men, so that the latter would receive the pensions .to which they are no doubt all entitled.
, Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell): ,Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Government, two of the representatives of which .were concerned in effecting a settlement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company .and its employees of the. strike which has been referred to so often this afternoon, I .have a very distinct recollection of what took place at that time and of what occurred .subsequently to the -settlement and during .the .period while that administration was jin office and while the Grand Trunk Railway Company continued to be guilty of a gross breach of faith. Not only were efforts .towards a settlement made by the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and >by .the late Sir Frederick Borden; hut when the company, in violation of the terms of the agreement entered into, refused to carry out its provisions, but the then Minister of Railways, the Hon. George P. Graham, was most active for several months in endeavouring to force the company to carry out what it had agreed to do. In all probability my hon. friend, who now fills the office of Minister of Railways of Canada (Mr. J D. Reid), could find on the files of that department, correspondence showing the efforts made by the Hon. George P. Graham to secure from the company what the company had, through two 1 ministers of the then Government, promised its employees that it would do.

of any company comprised in the Grand Trunk system, which were not disclosed to the board of arbitrators prior to the making of their award, the Government may, within such period of three months, apply to the board of arbitrators to amend their award, and the board may thereupon decide whether such liabilities existed and were not disclosed to them, whether the amount of their award would or would not have been affected thereby, and the amount of the deduction, if any, to be made in respect thereof; and may amend their-award accordingly.
I think one may say without hesitation that the general question of the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is a subject pertinent to the inquiry into which the board of arbitfators has to go. That being so, I think that what I propose to say will attain the object sought to be attained by this motion, I am quite prepared to say on behalf of the Government that before that board of arbitrators we shall see to it that the claim that this is an existing' liability is put forward with every facility for establishing it, assuming it to be susceptible of establishment, and that every opportunity will be given to establish it and to press it on the consideration of the board.
I would be willing to go farther and to say that I think it will be quite justifiable that ii should be pressed not only in so far as it can be sustained as being an absolutely legal claim but that it should be pressed upon the consideration of the arbitrators from the point of view even of a moral or equitable claim, and that they should be asked-of course we cannot give that instruction-that it be given every possible weight in order to assure justice being done to these men. What would be the situation if that procedure proved ineffective to obtain the recognition of the claim it is perhaps unnecessary that we should go into now? What the position will be when the stock has passed absolutely to this Government, and this Government is in the position of being the sole stockholder, and what will perhaps be the position in view of the provisions of section 17 of the agreement,
I think we need not now stop to consider. For the present, the proceeding now to take place affords an opportunity of having this matter gone into and having the justice of the claim that is put forward established. That is the one effective method that is open to us and on behalf of the Government I am quite prepared to undertake that it shall be adopted. In view of what I have pointed out as to what seems to me to be the impracticability of carrying out just what my hon. friend asks in this motion; in view of the unanimous expression of opinion that has come from this House that the matter

should be brought to the attention of the board of arbitrators; in view of the fact that there should be no difficulty in bringing it to their attention; in view of what I have intimated on behalf of the Government that this opportunity will be afforded and in view of the fact that the purpose of his motion has been largely achieved by the unanimous expression of opinion that it has elicited fronj the House, I would ask him not to press it further at the present time.


William Alves Boys: Would it not be necessary to suggest to the arbitrators that they should not only consider but should ascertain the extent of the liability because, as I understand it, the extent of the liability would be deducted from the value of the stock and you would have to set apart that amount of money for the benefit of the men?


Mr. DOHERTY:: In speaking of urging
consideration I had in mind the ascertainment of what that amount was. It would be necessary to ascertain the amount before one could arrive at any conclusion as to what would be the effect upon the value of the stock of the existence of this claim. If it were established, and we were called upon to pay a smaller amount for the common stock by reason of the existence of that liability, evidently that would come over to us as a liability of the company with all these other liabilities of the company of which this Government would be the only stockholder, and it would have to pay that liability of the Grand Trunk just as it would have to pay all its other liabilities. The liabilities do not come to the Government as Government liabilities, but the Government is in the position of being the only stockholder and therefore in a position where it would be necessary for it to see that the liabilities are paid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister a question? It seems to me that this matter turns largely on what may be a legal right and what is a moral obligation. As I understand my right hon. friend now, he would ask the Board of Arbitrators to consider whether a moral obligation as well as a legal right exists. So far so good. Assuming, however, that the board finds that there is a moral obligation but no legal right, then, as I understand it, the board has no power to take any further action.
I think it would be unfortunate if that stage were reached;'it would add to the uncertainty and confusion there has been in the mind of labour right along in regard to its rights in this important question. The question, therefore, I would like to ask the minister is this: Would it not be pos-

sible, so as to avoid any happening of the kind, if, in the Bill which has been introduced to ratify this agreement, the Government were to insert a clause, first of all empowering the Board of Arbitrators to inquire into the question of moral obligation as well as legal right, and in the second place obliging the board, in the event of finding there was a moral obligation, to regard that moral obligation as a legal liability to be met by the company?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There would be some practical objection I think to the course suggested. It must be remembered that we have reached a stage now where we have an agreement, which agreement has been ratified by the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not by Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not by Parliament yet but that agreement does not require, -for its effectiveness, that it should be ratified by 'Parliament. As a matter of absolute necessity I do not think there is anything to require that the agreement should be ratified by Parliament, although there might be particular things which might make that necessary. Whether there is or not, if we suppose that course is necessary and we modify the agreement it will have to go back-at least it should in all fairness -to the Grand Trunk shareholders to be ratified by them, because that is a condition of the original agreement. The shareholders ratified the agreement and when you make any substantial change it seems to me-at first glance at all events-it would be necessary to send the modified agreement back to the shareholders for ratification.
Now in reference to what I said with regard to urging this matter as a moral claim, I am not prepared to lay this down as an absolutely legal position: but I myself would feel justified in urging upon the Board of Arbitration that if, in t-heir opinion, this was a claim so strong in equity that the Government, coming into control of the railway, could not do otherwise than recognize it it would be a perfectly fair thing to estimate and determine the value of the claim. I am not laying that down as an absolute legal position to be followed, but I would feel like urging that upon the board. In that situation, if the Board of Arbitration find that they cannot take into consideration anything but an absolutely legal claim I do not want to undertake to
say now what will be done. What I am at present pointing out is, that the Government will be in the position of being the sole shareholder of the company with regard to which company if the Board so determine it will have been found that there did exist this strong moral claim. I fancy that the Government in that situation would find itself in the position where it would necessarily have to consider a claim of that kind. I do not want to make promises about hypothetical conditions but I think what I have said meets the view presented. In doing what I have undertaken to do we shall be taking full advantage of the opportunity made possible by the creation of this particular board. It must be remembered that Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, under the legislation which we have passed have come to be the two adverse parties with regard to a particular question. That we should now exercise our legislative power to alter the conditions of the matter that is being submitted' to arbitration is, I think, a very serious question. If we can do it with respect to this particular claim then Parliament mig t proceed to legislate into existence any number of obligations binding on the Grand Trunk, and arrive at the result of destroying entirely the value of the stock. I think it would be difficult for us, having agreed to submit this matter to arbitration, then to proceed to alter by positive legislation the value of the assets to be determined by the Board of Arbitration. I think, in all justice, we ought to approach the arbitrators, asking them to arbitrate under the conditions and bearing in mind the liabilities that actually exist and that we should not proceed to legislate liabilities into existence. If this be an absolute liability we do not need any such legislation. If it be not, and the arbitrators think they cannot consider it, then in effect what we would be doing, as between us and the Grand Trunk, would be altering the conditions of the agreement to which the shareholders consented. The doing of that is not essential, it seems to me, to the rights of the men concerned being protected in the mannef I have suggested at the present time, or by such other action as may be found proper, if the method I have suggested should not prove effective.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the mover of the resolution replies, I must remind the House that any hon. gentleman who desires to speak should do so now. otherwise the debate is closed.


Mr. CUEEIE:: I have to thank the House for the very cordial endorsement of the principle contained in my resolution, and also to thank the Minister of Justice for the expression of opinion that he has given on behalf of the Government. I furthermore desire to specially thank the leader of the Opposition for the attitude he has taken in the matter. Having been in the House at the time this question arose I can endorse everything that the hon. gentleman has said.
My reason for bringing the motion forward was that I did not wish the position of these employees of the Grand Trunk to be prejudiced by the ratifying of this agreement without there being any mention made of their claims or any consideration paid those claims. I candidly admit that I myself did not have quite as clear a view of this question when I framed the resolution as I have at the present time. The Grand Trunk Eailway Company has provided by law a pension fund, which is undoubtedly, a trust fund of that company, and it has been paying every year to that fund a sufficient amount of money to take care of the retirements of employees. What I wish to do is to have the claims of the men presented by the Government before the arbitrators without any expense to those men, and the Minister of Justice has satisfied me that that is going to be done. If the arbitrators hold-'and they have ample power under the agreement to do so, notwithstanding anything that has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie)-that there is a hidden liability in the shape of this claim, and a certain sum has to be paid into the fund to make good to these men, then that amount should be deducted from the value of the Grand Trunk. If, on the other hand, there is mere than enough in this fund to take care of everything, and no consideration is given to these claims the Grand Trunk shareholders may claim some equity in the fund and ask that a certain amount of money be paid over to the Graind Trunk in respect to it. So there are two sides to 'the question. But if it is argued before the arbitrators I am satisfied that with all the facts in their possession they will come to a just and equitable decision, and the .minister has .satisfied me that the Government will have the matter argued before the arbitrators on behalf of the men.
. The second point arises in connection with the objection taken by the minister to the wording of my resolution, in that 
the committee in charge of operations can-pot be instructed in any way to take action in this matter. That committee will have .control of this road for a certain period while .the arbitration is proceeding, and my object in referring the matter to that committee d.s that during the arbitration period men who according to the pension .regulations have to retire on reaching the age limit, will need to be protected, and I hope that the Government will see that .their claims are not prejudiced. Although ,at first sight one would presume that the (Committee would have nothing to do with the subject matter of my resolution, it will (be apparent from what I have stated that during a period of probably two years they .will 'be in charge of the road while men .reaching the age limit are retiring, and my (desire is that from now on such men shall (be dealt with equitably, and it seems to (me that the only proper course is to instruct the committee accordingly.
With reference to what should happen in .regard to the question of pensions, under clause 17 of the purchase agreement the Government will have the matter entirely under its control. Clause 17 reads:
Superanuation and Pension Funds.-The Grand Trunk Superanuation Fund shall continue in existence and shall continue to be administered as at present, and in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the same. The rules and regulations of the Grand Trunk pension system shall continue to be applicable to employees of the Grand Trunk system until a general pension scheme applicable to all employees of Canadian Government-owned or controlled railways shall be adopted and become effective. The rules and regulations of the Grand Trunk Insurance and Provident Society shall continue to be applicable unless and until the Government' shall adopt and make effective a general insurance scheme applicable to all employees of Canadian Government-owned or controlled railways. In no case shall any acquired rights or vested interests in either the pension system or the Insurance or Provident Society be affected.
i No doubt as soon as the Government .takes over this road and the Pension Fund with it we may presume from ithe attitude of the minister and of the House that justice will be done ito these men regardless (Of what decision may be reached 'by the arbitrators. If that is so I am satisfied that I need not pursue this matter further.
. But there is one other question, which (after all is important, and that is that the .claims of these eighteen or twenty men who .have been compulsorily retired under ithe age clause should not be prejudiced by .anything that is done, and .that if the Arbitration Board do not find that the men jiave any claim against the company, their claim on the Penision Fund should be

made good as soon as the Government takes charge of the road. I urge that on )the Government as the only right and just .course to be followed.
, As nothing can be attained at present by piy pressing this resolution further, and ,as the House is unanimous that action .should be take at onoe, with the consent of my seconder, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



THE BOARD OF COMMERCE-MOTION FOR ITS ABOLITION AND THE CREATION OF LOCAL BOARDS TO REPLACE IT.

Mr. H. DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in placing this motion on the Orders of the Day, my intention was to once more call the attention of the Government to a very serious domestic problem which is the cause of the unrest affecting half of our population, I am referring to the inefficiency and lack of ability of the present Board of Commerce.
Of course the matter I am referring to does not apply to the farmers who, generally speaking, are an industrious and hardworking class of people, whose prosperity and comfort are well established and which has been and is yet entitled to our admiration and best wishes. There is another class of, people who are certainly enjoying at present an unprecedented prosperity. They are known in the country as "profiteers." These men seem to have taken as a vocation that of oppressing without relaxation their fellow-men, specially the city workers whom they subject to a most vexatious system of exploitation. We are trying, by all kinds of subterfuges and tricks, to hide this social evil from those who are suffering from it, and we endeavour to convince them that the present social unrest is due merely to the reaction following every war. We know, of course, that such reaction exists everywhere, hut not to the same extent. In no other country of the world will you see what is taking place in Canada.
To-day again, I noticed in the Montreal Gazette, and I had read often before, that in the United States, instead of protecting the men who are causing such reaction, instead of giving them more power and allowing them to carry on at their own
sweet will, they arrest them, exacting in every instance a heavy hail pending their conviction which very seldom fails. In the case as reported in the Gazette this morning, it is obvious that the profiteer referred to would not have committed suicide, had he not known that he was to be convicted.
To the requests and delegations which are asking the Government to improve the condition o'f the workingmen, there seems to be always the same answer: "It is an effect of the war from which every country is suffering; work, thrift and production are the only remedies to that evil."
Mr. Speaker, they are asking our workers in the cities to pratice economy, when it is established by the Labour Gazette, that the wages they are getting are not sufficient to provide for their own families. They are asked to increase the production and then, 'the producer controls the markets; he can charge whatever prices he wishes and the workers see the product of their labour benefiting foreigners and often being used for the relief of enemies. They are asked to work. It is true that industrial and labour conferences are held and that some interest is seemingly taken in the condition of the workers by recognizing and accepting their organizations, but it is simply on the surface. In every industry the workingmen are opposed with the utmost rigour and they have great difficulty in getting the insufficient rate of wages they are getting now.
I have no hesitation in saying that the policy of the Government as far as the labour problems are concerned is completely false and misleading. Every now and then industrial conferences are called either in Ottawa, Hamilton or Montreal where there is td be one shortly and these conferences are at the pxpense of the Government. These meetings are called, the labour leaders, generally self appointed leaders-are convened as well as the leaders of industry, but there are no results. Commissions are continually being appointed, laws enacted with a view to bettering the condition of the working class and, in spite of all that, everything is at a standstill and the conditions never improve. All these commissions, if they were properly constituted, ought to have very large powers and they have none. For instance, take the commission of which Mr. O'Connor was a member. Because, one day, he acted in earnest and sincerely, he was dismissed by the Government. A certain influence had exerted itself, probably through friends

oi the Government. A little later, it was proposed to- regulate the prices of milk in Toronto. There again, some inbuence interfered and after making the regulations the commissioner was forced to alter his decision.
Then the public statement made by Hon. Justice Robson is the beist proof that these boards as constituted are absolutely of no value and completely ineffective.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if these boards are of no value and if the present methods to reduce the cost of living and to improve the condition of the working classes, are inefficient, they have to be changed. Recognizing as we do to-day the lack of ability and efficiency of these boards, we must do away with them. That is my object in submitting this resolution, in order that we may devise some more practical means to improve the conditions that obtain at present.
I think that by creating local hoards, to be composed of well informed and thoroughly independent men appointed by the local authority and who, being well known among the residents of that locality for their charity, would be able to exert a considerable influence on their fellow-citizens, justice would be better administered without any special attention being paid to any one and their descisions would be respected.
I have confidence in these local boards. I think the Government is afraid to cause their friends some trouble. In transferring their powers to these local boards their responsibility would be sufficiently sheltered so that they would not have to be uneasy on that score. Take the collection of the duties on tobacco for instance. Why is it so successful? It is because the customs officers reside in the place whose peculiarities they are perfectly conversant with. ' The same thing would occur with the local boards; they would know all the abuses committed by the profiteers and would be within the reach of those who have any complaints to lodge, whereas the present Board of Commerce travels from one city to another and the complainants can never reach them.
There is one sure thing about these local boards, Mr. Speaker-, namely, that you would certainly not see a recurrence of what has taken place in the past. We would not see any more of these profiteers, who, taking advantage of the working class, used to travel all over the county of Two Mountains, buying the whole potato crop and then leaving it there to spoil; who were doing the same thing in the county of Napierville. where the potatoes remained to rot in the

cellars of the producers; who, after shipping trainloads of these products, let them freeze on the railway sidings at Montreal; who, every spring, were filling the dumps of the city of Montreal with foodstuffs which they had hoarded and hidden during all winter to create a scarcity, and therefore an increase in the prices. We would not see any longer what occurred in the month of February of last year, when landlords increased their rents 200 per cent without any good reason and without any increase in taxes, but just because they were well aware of the fact that the housing accommodation in Montreal at the time was inadequate.
I know it is very hard for all hon. members of this House to fully realize th-e situation and the distress which obtains in our cities. Many of them enjoy the privilege of residing in the country and others,-owing to the character of their occupation, do not mingle so closely with the working people as I do. In order to know the -wants and sacrifices of the working class, you must necessarily, through your profession, follow' their ov'n way of living, to mingle with them day and night, like I do, to note what is going on in their home, be their confident as regards the abuses to which they are subjected, and the sacrifices imposed on them; be 'their attending physician, in other words, have a knowledge of their home life, arid that, every hon. member cannot have. As far as that is concerned, I am certainly more privileged than many others. Often, in the practice of my profession, I happen to meet on my way some of these people who, though their health is completely wrecked, are bound to go to work. I see often, in the morning, mothers taking their children over to the day nursery before going to eke out their means of subsistence. That is what I see as a practising physician. What is the cause of it all? It is because the head of the family has been taken away by the last war which we have gone through. As the hon. member for Ottaw'a (Mr. Fripp) stated in this House last year, the majority of the soldiers were taken out of the cities, and it is there w'here you notice the gaps, where there is want and distress, and where the disorganization occurred. Therefore, the Government ought to pay particular attention to this class of workers instead of being content with granting them sham protection such as the Board of Commerce.
Occasionally I happen to hear on my way all kinds of remarks; sometimes I have heard this expression, most unjust because it certainly is most untrue, that

the city operatives are people unwilling to work, looking after wages which are not due them. I will admit, with those critics, who are apt to indulge in rather sweeping statements, that, in our cities we have labour agitators, we have people who prejr on labour oragnizations, who make a living out of them, we have radical socialists, we have fomenters of social discords, we even have Bolsheviki in the service of petty political cliques which are not unknown to the Honourable Senator Robertson, but who surely are not representative of the spirit of the great labouring class that have for their motto one of the articles of the Liberal party's programme: Orderly progress, prosperity and welfare, of all classes.
I think it is my duty to protest as strongly as I can against such epithets as are applied to a vast majority of the labouring class. These epithets are unjust, for the workingmen, as a matter of fact, are honest, laborious and good workers, and. from the bottom of my heart I do sympathize with them when I see them struggling against a certain class of individuals whom I shall presently describe. You will remember that, in my opening remarks, I did congratulate and express my best wishes to the farming class in general, but there does exist in the vicinity of Montreal, take my word for it, a certain class of citizens who practise, in the disposing of their produce, a-system of extortion just as blamable and contemptible as the methods of those professional speculators who ply their trade in more remote quarters. From my point of view, both these classes of people have the same erroneous notion of justice and of humanity. With such local commissions as I suggest, I am sure that all these evils would disappear.
Our city workmen, Mr. Speaker, who certainly constitute one-half of the population of this Dominion, have not the advantage of breathing the pure and sunny air of our country places. From morning till night and even from night to morning, month after month, they are shut up in more or less sanitary workshops, in a foul atmosphere, breathing all sorts of dusts, of gases, both deleterious and poisonous in the spinning mills, in the white lead, sulphur, soda, quicksilver and rolling mills, in a word, all those manufactures which you recognize, as you go by, through a special sign; ambulances ever standing at the gates awaiting their victims. These people spend their days in such deleterious surroundings which greatly shorten their
lives; they are daily exposed to die and yet they labour for wages which should be doubled, trebled and quadrupled; the product of their work is sent abroad and they see their own manufactures' manager come here and testify in this very Parliament __ that, upon the product of their labour, he makes some 200 per cent profits, and, nevertheless neither the Board of Commerce nor the Government enact any legislation and take any means in order to improve their condition. I declare that is the greatest of all possible wrongs.
Everybody knows how many investigations have been held, there have been some in every country and, for its part, the present Government has quite a number to its credit. Well, Mr. Speaker, the result of all these Parliamentary inquiries shows one evident fact: It is that the cost of living will remain high as long as the producers, the wholesale dealers do not reduce the amount of their profits, as long as the profiteers, the cold storage men withhold from the people immense quantities of foodstuff which should be put on the market and that with the sole object of creating an apparent scarcity and thereby boosting prices.
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote a few statistics, reproduced by the Indianapolis News, about some big companies doing business in the United States, and in Canada as well, that have been somewhat disturbed on the American, but never on this side of the frontier. During the past few years, five companies have accumulated thousands of tons of meat, have constituted a meat trust with the sole and single object of growing richer and richer. As the following statistics may show, they have perfectly succeeded: $1,000 invested 6 years ago in the Armour Company is worth to-day $32,000; $1,000 invested in the Swift Company 6 years ago, is now worth $20,000; $1,000 invested in the Morris Company, 3 years ago, is worth at the present moment $23,000;	$1,000 invested in the Cudahy Company 6 years ago, is now worth $26,000, and $1,000 invested 2 years ago in the Wilson Company, is worth to-day $7,000.
Mr. Speaker, I have just shown the degree which human cupidity may reach when free from control, and the control of those appetites certainly requires a vigorous action, quite in contrast with that which was evidenced by the present Government up to this date. The Government will never succeed in putting them under control by

such colourless inquiries as they held when a complaint was made against a Winnipeg merchant who had thrown to the dump a great quantity of eggs, probably because they had gone bad. After the inquiry was held, the Government told us that the eggs had been thrown away for the reason that they were stale. What the country would like to know is not the reason why those eggs were thrown away, but the cause of their becomming stale to the detriment of the public. The Government will meet with no better success, either, by means of such inquiries as were held in the case of Matthews-Blackwell and William Davies, of Montreal; Rattenbury, of Charlottetown; Graham, of Belleville; Nathan Rosenstein, of Winnipeg; the Dominion Pish and Fruit, of Quebec, etc. What was the action of the Board of Commerce? In the case of the three firms first mentioned, the charge was that they had been forestalling the eggs and enhancing the price. The Board ordered them to cease selling eggs for thirty days. That was exactly what the forestallers wanted in order to determine a scarcity of this produce and to make the iprice go up. Therefore, the Government, far from dealing rigorously with them, meted out encouragement and protection in their behalf. As lor the forestallers of butter and cheese, they were forced to deliver a certain overplus to the Allies, at the market price; this was giving certain friends an opportunity to make excessive profits in their turn. I say that if all those companies find no more obstacles in their way than they did in the past, they [DOT]will act likewise in the future and continue to take advantage of the workingman while the latter will be unable to defend himself. Since the business of those companies is so widespread and so flourishing, why should they not reduce the percentage of their profits and of their dividends? If they are unwilling to do so, is not the Government, appointed as they have, been to protect the general interest of the people, in conscience bound to enact such legislation and take such steps as may be necessary to punish those unscrupulous dealers? To my mind, iwe reached the climax of indecency when, at a parliamentary inquiry, the manager of a certain manufacture stated unblushingly that the shareholders got dividends ranging from 170 to 175 per cent, and when being told that this seemed to be excessive, answered the representatives of the people that he did not work for the glory of God, but to secure the highest dividends possible for his shareholders. Did the Government take action 
against those managers, against those industries? Not at. all. Those people are evidently unaware of the principle implying that every human act should be inspired by justice and toy charity. However, we must not wonder if we happen to see those manufacturers,, profiteers and speculators at the head of benevolent associations such as the Red Cross, or at the head of protective associations, of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals even, while in their own industries wilful murder is being committed every day.
The result of the inquiries held in every country of the world shows clearly that the high cost^ of living is due to the law of demand and supply, to impudent speculations, and, moreover, to cynical frauds and unscrupulous tactics on the part of the bulls-if I may use that expression-who are everywhere and who keep operating simultaneously in the places of production and in the great urban centres, sheltered from or tolerated by the powers that be, who refrain from using the repressive weapons put in their hands by the law; the high cost of living is due to that mad craving for wealth, to that love of money which seems to invade all the different classes of society; it is due especially to those middlemen, sheltered from all control and from all sanction, who seem to act as though they were the masters of the earth, while the Government refrains from taking any action. Why, one would almost think that the Government rather appreciates their mode of procedure.
I say that the cast of living will not be reduced as long as the Government allows those profiteers and speculators to squeeze the community and their fellowmen, instead of sending them to jail, as we see it done in the United States and in all European countries; as long as the Government fails to watch, and closely so, market fluctuations, and fails to adjust the prices in a reasonable 1 manner, so as not to check production but to eliminate that category of citizens called the middlemen, in order to save from the claws of those speculators the workingmen, who can resort only to the Government for protection. It seems that we are told not to molest those profiteers because it would be dangerous to do so, as they might strike and cause a greater evil.
I wonder since when it should be held up as a principle that evil is to be tolerated by the great mass of the people. Is it no longer dangerous to set at defiance within their last stronghold seventy-five per cent of

a population, the working class, for instance, instead of subduing those beasts of prey who live on the substance of the community. I think it an impervious duty for the Government to put a stop now, if it be not too late, to that cheating, that parliamentary clap-trap, to lay aside all the so-called progressive doctrines which can only serve the interests of a few and tickle the autocratic sentiments of a set of ninnies proficient only in trickery to an extreme degree, and to take it into their head that any policy whose immediate and direct aim is not the education of the people and the betterment of the condition of the many is a vain and dangerous policy not suitable in any sense to a democracy. Therefore I conclude that my resolution is well grounded; I fain believe the Government are not aware of all the misdeeds of those who loudly claim to be their friends, the workmen not being prone to boast of their sacrifices and sufferings. I am confident that the Government will take into earnest, and above all, practical consideration the resolution I have entered upon the Orders of the Day of the House.


Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not hear all the speech of my hon friend, the mover of this resolution, but, as he has spoken on the high cost of living I deem it my duty to say a few words in regard to that great problem which is the subject of so much discussion at the present time. There are many causes for the increase in the cost of living. I believe that the first time that the question was brought before the House and discussed was in 1912, and, in the discussion at that time, many reasons were brought out why legislation should be enacted to prevent a further increase in the cost of living in the future.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: May I ask the hon. member to speak a little louder?


Alphonse Verville: I am doing the best I can. il am not the architect of this Chamber, I am very sorry. Since 1912, the war has brought about absolutely different conditions, and the profiteering which existed before the war has increased by leaps and bounds, to such an extent that the whole civilized world have had their eyes turned on that class of people. The middlemen have increased by a hundred per cent; the large number of men who were accustomed to make large profits out of the war made up their minds that after the war was over they would endeavour to continue profiteer;
ing in some other way. Those who were furnishing foodstuffs for the war, knowing the large profit they were making, made up their minds-and perhaps from a business standpoint they were right-to make as much profit after the war as during the war. Of course, they had not the same reasons for doing so. After the war was over, they could no longer make the excuse that the high price was on account of the war; that cry is passing away. But the people are suffering just the same. As I said, the middlemen have multiplied themselves to a large extent, and they are multiplying themselves very largely to-day. One special reason is that there is too much difference between the price of production and the price at which goods are sold for consumption. II admit that there are in this country many farmers who are willing to do all they can to better conditions, but there are others who are willing to do all they can to make conditions worse.
We often hear in this House that labour is so high; that transportation costs so much. If that extra cost were added on directly to the goods and the goods were sold with	the ordinary profit,
there would be some sense in the matter; but if a man is in business and if his labour costs him say twenty per cent more, he is not going to add twenty per cent to the labour alone, he is going to add twenty per cent onto the whole thing, and that I claim is absolutely dishonest. That is why there is such an unrest in the country at the present time, and the unrest now existing is merely the commencement of far worse conditions. If we do not legislate in this House and do something radical, inside of three years many hon. members here at present will see something that they will not like. The rank and file will stand about so much; they are like an animal who will stand about so much whipping and then he becomes tired and he is going to kick. The men have stood back a long time. I hear every day that the labour men of this country do not produce half as much as they used to do and they1 are asking for higher wages all the time, and, of course, the cost of production is increased on that account. The workingmen of the country are to-day having their turn; they have had the wrong end . of the deal for many years; they have asked for legislation for many years; now the condition has changed, and those who were of a very quiet spirit before have changed their minds and have decided that they are going to use the economic means at

their disposal to force, if possible, a wage commensurate with the cost of living. Some people say that it is the increase in wages that has increased the cost of living. The history of the world has not changed materially, although no doubt it has changed somewhat within the last couple of years; and history shows that increase in wages follows, and does not precede, increase in the cost of living. When people have to pay, as they do in these days, 55 to 60 cents for a dozen of eggs and about the same for a pound of butter, with other prices in proportion, how is it possible for them to live, especially in the cities. The fact is, they are not living; they are existing, and trouble is brewing. Whether the Government wants it Or not, something is going to happen and something is going to be done. We must look at conditions as they are and the men can stand just so much and no more.
If I understood my hon. friend aright, he spoke about the Board of Commerce that was appointed and that travelled throughout the country to find out how much foodstuffs were in cold storage and such like. Formerly, whenever we brought up the question of cold storage in this House, we were always confronted by the Minister of Labour with an Order in Council. He would say: The power is left to the cities; why do you not go to the cold storage companies and force them to give you the real quantity of goods they have in cold stor-aage? The Order in Council will allow you to go into the first room in the cold storage where they keep a certain quantity of foodstuffs for home consumption, but you are not allowed by the law to go beyond that door.


Mr. BURNHAM:: How would the hon.
gentleman lower the price of wheat?


Alphonse Verville: I would be better able to tell my hon. friend if I were a farmer. I am coming back to the farmers again; I am not through with them yet. When it is said that there is a shortage of foodstuffs, that statement*is absolutely incorrect. The cold storage people say:	We are keeping
a certain quantity of foodstuffs for export. I agree that exportation must be made, but if exportation must be made, at least, it should not be made at the sacrifice of the home market as is being done at the present time. The Order in Council which was passed some few years ago looked very good on the face of it. I need not repeat its provisions because we all know them by heart. Whenever the ex-MinisteT of Labour was cornered, he used to read that Order in

Council. Some cities tried to. put it in force, but they were at once met with the difficulty that they could only investigate goods that were in storage for the home market.'Without mentioning names, I know of a man who bought over $45,000 of onions last fall. Onions are now sold at $13.50 a bag wholesale, and the consumer has to pay 15 cents a pound. A year ago last spring you could buy onions at 40 cents a bag, and that price was quite high enough. Last fall, however, they were sold for $2 a bag, and surely the farmer was making a profit at that price. Now that the wholesale price is $13.50 a bag, can any reasonable man say that an excessive profit is not being taken? No city can pass by-laws and no Provincial Government can enact legislation compelling a man to sell his goods. Traders are very touchy. As soon as you start to interfere with a man's trade he says: This is my business and I am going to handle it how I like. If, then, cities and Provincial Governments have not power to force the sale of these goods we must come to this Parliament for the necessary legislation.
I shall not speak of wheat because I am not very well versed on that subject. I shall only deal with foodstuffs, which I can .see for myself on the market every day. I do not want my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) to think I dare not touch the grain growers of the West. I would deal with wheat if I knew enough about it.


John Hampden Burnham: If the- hon. gentleman is a free trader, he might tell us why he insists on legislation to govern the market.


Alphonse Verville: I insist on legislation to regulate prices.
/ Mr. BURNHAM: Where is the free trade in that?


Alphonse Verville: I do not call free trade allowing a man to sell his goods at whatever price he likes, regardless of the needs of the people. If a man is selling at an .exorbitant profit he should be called to account and be made to sell his goods at only a legitimate profit. He must give other people a chance to live. As to everyday foodstuffs, I believe there are combines handling these products. You can go through the market of any large city, Montreal, for instance, on a Tuesday or Friday morning and you will see the same price charged at both ends of the market.


Mr. FAFARD (translation):: Do I understand the honourable member to say that

the men who sell foi a lew dollars worth of foodstuffs on the market should be considered as farmers? These people buy from the farmers and sell their products on the markets; they are profiteers.


Alphonse Verville: My hon. friend does
not like me to call these people farmers. He says that the people who sell these products on the market are- the market gardeners, for instance, living near a city.
I know the people I am speaking of. If there are honest profiteers, sc much the better; I take off my hat to them. I say that among the producers around a large [DOT]city there are combines. It rvas proved that in Montreal last Fall there was a combine in potatoes, but neither the city nor the Provincial Government could do anything to prevent it. I admit that there are a great many reasonable men among the farmers, but these producers around the cities are taking advantage of the very large markets they have close at hand. Furthermore, there is no middleman -between them and the consumer in the city, while in other places there may be three [DOT]or four or half a dozen middlemen between the producer and the consumer. It is obvious that a farmer -whose goods pass through the hands of three or four middlemen and eventually reach the consumer at about the same price as the products bought from the producers direct, must be selling his goods much cheaper in the first place. I know that some people are very touchy in respect of any criticism of the farmers, but 1 say that we can give the facts, for the farmers are well able to take care of themselves.
The farmer, however, has nothing to do with the cold storage plants. I should like to see the cities of this country and the Provincial Governments given power to prevent the hoarding of food in cold storage [DOT]warehouses. If they had this power the people of Montreal would not have to pay 15 cents a pound for onions, or $5 a bag for potatoes at this time of the year. I do not know whether the board that the Government appointed has made a report on middlemen and profiteers. I do not want to ,go over the ground we traversed last year and the year before. The members of this [DOT]House, regardless of the amount of money they may possess and the large amount they receive here as members, are in a position to know how much it costs to live to-day and they must know how hard it is for the common people of this country to make ends meet. Many industries in this country are making a lot of money. Take the *shoe industry, for instance. Just about three months ago you could buy a pair of very good shoes, something that is very often wanted in a big family, for $10 a pair. That was a high price. But since last January the shoe store men have [DOT]been instructed by the manufacturers to sell these same shoes for $15 a pair. They did not cost a cent more, because they were on the shelf. Because Mr. Manufacturer tells you that you cannot get any more unless you pay $5 more a pair, up goes the price to the extent of $5 or over. It may be cotton. A notice is sent out: From now on we will not furnish you with cotton unless you pay so much a yard more. The storekeeper may have a lot of cotton in stock. Up goes the price again. Is that reasonable; is that fair? If a man would say: "I am going to sell at a reasonable profit according to the price that I pay for the goods," it would be different; but when he takes advantage of the increase that they make in the factory price to put his own price up and make a profit of three hundred or four hundred per cent, I say it is wrong. .Nay I go further; I do not believe it is honest; if I will not be out of order I will say it is highway robbery. It is nothing but that. If there was a small increase it would not be so bad; there is no reason in the world why there should be such an enormous increase in the cost of the necessities of life.
They say: 'Transportation is going up and that is why we have to sell goods for so much. Perhaps it is true that to some extent transportation has gone up, but that does not account for the enormous increases that have taken place. Then they always come back and make the claim that they have been obliged to put up prices because the cost of labour is high. Take a parcel of goods worth $500 and you will find that the increase in the cost of labour that has been put upon those goods is perhaps not $10. It would be a reasonable thing for the dealer to sell those goods at $5.10. But no, he wants to secure a big price from the people and he places upon these- goods a figure that will net him three hundred or four hundred per cent.
Do you suppose that is going to last? It is impossible. Whether we want it or not, some of these fine mornings-and I would not blame them-you will see in the large cities groups of hungry men starting to go around these big stores and helping themselves. No civil power will stop them from doing so because their families are hungry.

Is it better to wait for that or to legislate, if possible, now?
I am asked what kind of legislation should be brought about. I will leave that to the Government. They can do it. I know they can. If they are not afraid of those big profiteers-and I think they are not-they will bring in legislation during the present session to regulate prices in such a way as to give a man a reasonable profit on his goods. iLet him only charge so much and if his profit is a fair one the consumer will be satisfied.


John Hampden Burnham: Would the hon. gentleman treat profiteering in the same way as usury?


Alphonse Verville: Oh, I would hang thean. I think profiteering is worse. Usury only affects a few people while .profiteering affects the whole community; jit is altogether different. There may be some people in cities who will go to borrow money at high interest but there are only a few here and there. The high cost of living and profiteering strike at the very foundations of society; they affect the people themselves. Rich and poor are affected. You speak of the high cost of living while the working people are speaking of the cost of high living. Every one is accustomed to live at a certain standard, his living formerly cost him so much but he now says that it costs him so much more. There are many people who are receiving salaries of $1,000, some less and some a little more. Will any hon. gentleman sitting at his desk take his pencil and figure out how these people live? In 1912 we were told that in this country it cost a family of five $780 to live and there were a lot of things omitted. When that was brought up in the House at that time I was asked how it was possible for a family to live on that amount. If they could not live then how can they live now? Have wages doubled? Those who are receiving $1,000 now were receiving about $700 at that time; so that there has been an increase of $300.
When you reach a certain pitch in salaries the increase stops. Smaller salaries have increased more than others. When you begin to speak of salaries people will say: That man is making 60 cents or 75 cents an hour; he ought to be satisfied. But they always forget there are 365 days in the year and that there are three meals in each day. No man will work for 365 days in the year, and not many for 300 days. Three hundred days is the maximum working time for any human being in the

course of a year. Nobody does it because in many trades climatic conditions prevent it. You rwould be surprised, at the end of the year, to see the amount of money that men receiving 75 cents an hour have made. It has been said in this House that- the .working people are spending too much money, but we seem to forget the amount they receive and we should ask ourselves .where they get the money to spend. My last word is to ask the Government whether it would be possible during the present session to enact legislation to regulate prices and put all these big profiteers in jail.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I wish to make a few remarks since this subject is particularly interesting to one who represents a city constituency, because he at least is enabled to express his views' on the high cost of living and on the profiteers without having his political life endangered by our friends - of the cross benches. Of course it must be well understood that the farmers from the hack lots and the back roads are necessarily not able to profit, since they have no market; I wish that to be well understood. Incidentally I am sorry that we have not heard from hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to this subject, but I should advise them that we are face to face with a situation which in a few years-probably after the next election-will be a very serious one to a large class of the community and that class will be ground between the upper and the lower millstone. We will have the horny handed sons of the soil, we will have the soldiers, we will have the labourers; a situation, so to speak-without wishing to offend any of these classes-which will bear a striking resemblance to the soldiers, peasants and workmen's delegates of Russia. The Bourgeoisie, or the Intelligentia, will then be in a somewhat difficult position. It seems to me we ought to act honestly and frankly and see that whoever is responsible for this increase in the cost of living is punished, whether by so doing we lose the soldier vote, the labour vote, or the farmer vote. Whether we represent city or town constituencies we should do the best we possibly can to place our finger on the spot from which this evil originates.
Now the farmer, as I have said, is not to my mind entirely guilty. We must take into consideration too, that he, in a large number of cases, has been imposed upon and has been placed in such a position

that he is blamed for a great deal for which he is really not guilty, by what we have called the "middleman." I know it is becoming the fashion to rail against the "middleman" because nobody seems to know who he is and therefore he is a pretty good man to hit. I have never heard any particular class of the community confess to being "middlemen."


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
lawyers?


Charles Gavan Power: At the same time I think it really is possible to point to some "middlemen," and among others I would designate the cold storage people. Without going into details, and tiring the House by quoting exhaustive examples of profiteering, I have under my hand a lengthy correspondence exchanged between a very prominent citizen of Quebec and the Hon. Mr. Robertson during the year 1919. A certain example is given by this Quebec citizen which would no doubt be of some interest. In a letter dated May 25, 1919, he says:
On Thursday last a schooner from the country parts arrived in port loaded with hay. The father of one of our reporters-
This citizen is a newspaper man.-
-purchased a ton at $30 the price at which the farmers were quite satisfied to sell and make a good profit. An hour or so afterwards the entire cargo was purchased hy one of our wholesale houses and retailed at $38 to $40 per ton.
Last week a barge arrived in port from the county of Portneuf loaded with hay which the owners were ready to sell at $26 per ton. It was bought up by a local firm and immediatSly retailed at $35 per ton.
A local firm in the city on Friday last jumped the price of oats from $1.75 a hag to $1.95 giving the labour troubles of Winnipeg as a reason for the increase.
A large number of these examples have been brought to the attention of the Government and apparently not acted upon. So together with the middleman there is an accomplice, and an accessory before and after the fact, and this accomplice and this accessory is the Government of Canada.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What action would my hon. friend suggest?


Charles Gavan Power: I would repeat the suggestion of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. MoMaster): Follow our advice and put in a good government. However, owing to the fact that some of my hon. friend's opposite -though a large number of them agree with me that the Government is not a very good one-wish to remain in their seats
for another couple of years, so we will find it impossible to turn the Government out at present.


William Cameron Edwards: I might amend my
iquestion and ask, what immediate action would the hon. gentleman suggest?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let the Government resign.
, Mr. POWER:	That to my mind would
he the very best and quickest method. If I were to suggest another method to the present Government, they are so fond of delay that it would take months and months before the method would be brought into effect. However, I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) that the existing laws, together with such new laws as may be necessary, be enforced so that anybody guilty of profiteering, guilty of any offence such as I have just cited, be prosecuted, and if convicted, sentenced to a very severe penalty. This has been done in England and in France, I think it has also been done in the United States-in fact I read in to-day's Montreal Gazette that a prominent haberdasher of New York committed suicide because he was about to be convicted of profiteering in clothing. It is therefore open to the Government to take proper measures to decrease the high cost of living and bring it within reasonable bounds. But the policy of the Government on this question appears to be not to help those who may not favour them politically and not to interfere with those who favour them politically. For example, in bringing before the Board of Commerce subjects which should interest that body, they picked on an industry such as the newsprint industry which they considered one engaged in providing the necessaries of life. Newspapers are valuable, we all read them, but I hardly think-and my contention has been upheld by the Supreme Court-that they could ever have been considered necessaries of life. Even the ministers will hardly contend they were serious when they instituted proceedings against the pulp and paper manufacturers of Canada on the ground that paper was a necessity of life. If I know the'history of this agitation with reference to newsprint the policy for the control of newsprint was brought down and enforced by the Government as a fulfilment of the campaign pledges made by them in 1917. If my information is correct the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) was interested to this extent-that a very prominent paper in Toronto which is supposed to be one of his best journal-



istic supporters, had for a considerable period of , time asked that some control be placed on newsprint. And the hon. the President of the Privy-Council-a man of his word and, X have no doubt, always anxious to do the best he can to help his friends in every possible way-was only too eager, when he obtained a position in the Government, to fulfil his pledges, or at any rate to render himself more popular with the newspaper in question. Shortly afterwards the investigation was made by a Mr. Pringle, who having found that there might be profiteering in newsprint, suspected there might also be profiteering in newspapers, and wished to investigate the newspaper situation. But if my information is correct, he was told that his commission only covered an investigation of the newsprint situation. Shortly afterwards he resigned. The matter was then brought before the .Board of Commerce, with results which we all know.
While I am speaking of the newsprint matter I hope my friends opposite do not imagine that because the firm most interested in the investigation, Price Bros., come from Quebec I wish to favour them unduly. I may say for the information of hon. gentlemen that that firm is composed of what I might call the hereditary enemies of Liberalism. If there is a body of men in the province of Quebec more Tory than the members of that firm-
An hon. MEMBER-And more Unionist. Mr. POWER: Not now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Gavan Power: It strikes me as being rather peculiar that Price Bros., who some years ago would not "truck nor trade with the Yankees," will now tiuck or trade with nobody else. It is not, therefore, for their sakes that I am bringing this matter before the House, but simply and solely because the newsprint industry is of great importance to the province of Quebec, giving employment to thousands of workmen, and had the action of the Government been upheld by the courts those men would very likely have been thrown out of work. It is, therefore, because I sympathize with these labourers and their families that I now refer to it. So much was this danger apparent, that newspapers like the [Montreal Gazette and the Quebec Chronicle-staunch Tory sheets-have invariably attacked the Government in reference thereto. It may be that outside of the Montreal Gazette, the other newspapers were not such large con-
sumers of newsprint that the increased price affected them to such an extent to force them to continue their support of the Government. I hold in my hand an article from L'Evenement, which my hon. friends must know is a really honest, straightforward Tory paper that has supported the Union party up till very recently. If the House will permit me I will give a rough translation. The article is in effect as follows:
Th Federal Government is not happy. It commits all kinds of blunders, but so far it has been possible for it to survive the reason for its existence. It is now about to commit a crime against those who were the first to uphold it.
Iln speaking of the control of newspapers the article proceeds:
The Government has never in any way restricted the exportation of foodstuffs, although not a day passed during the last five years when the public did not complain of the increased cost of food. To the criticisms of the people the Government answered, with considerable force, that there was this advantage for Canada, namely, that by profiting from the high prices on foodstuffs sold in the foreign markets the Canadian producer was able to maintain the commercial balance. But if that argument was a worthy one at that time, it is all the more worthy now when the exchange situation is so unfavourable to us. It seems to us that the Government is afraid of the newspapers and has favoured them in an absolutely unjust fashion to such an extent that a number of those journals most closely interested declare publicly that such administrative action is absolutely regrettable.
When I read such newspapers as L'Evene-ment, the Gazette and the Chronicle protesting that they find it impossible to further support the Government to the defence of which they have hitherto devoted their best energies, I am forced to conclude that it certainly was not the duty of the Administration to bring such a matter as the newsprint situation before our courts while, as was well said by my hon. friend from St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers), the workingmen in our cities and towns were in almost a starving condition owing to the high cost of foodstuffs.
As I said before, I had not intended to keep the House any length of time, and I apologize for having spoken so long, but I thought it was only just and reasonable that while we were on the question of the high cost of living we should examine into the manner in which the Government had abused its power with reference to matters that undoubtedly did not call for its attention.


Mr. S. F. GLASS (East Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just

taken his seat (Mr. Power) and the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Verville) in their remarks usually assure us, when there is trouble about the price of foodstuffs, that they are speaking on behalf of the poor labouring man, and they plead that some effort shall be made to arrest the rising price of commodities. I have every sympathy for the workingman and the difficulties under which he labours at the present time, but I want to say to my hon. friends that in my opinion the fault for the present condition of affairs rests much more with labour than it does with the farming community.
How incongruous it must he to our farmers to hear the labouring classes say to them: "You must produce the food we require in order to lower the cost of living," when they know that while they are working their twelve, fourteen and sixteen hours a day on the farm the labouring classes are trying to still further reduce their already shorter hours of labour. The rising costs are due not so much to the fact that wages are high as to the fact that labour in many instances will not deliver the goods. Labour is not producing to-day as it did in the pre-war days. Labour will have to take a different attitude. Labour ought to co-operate with the farmer; ought to view the work of the farmer from the proper standpoint.
Now, Sir, my hon. friend thinks that the establishment of cold storages militates against the chances of labour getting foodstuffs at lower prices. Why, only in recent years from all parts of the country requests came to the House that the establishment of cold storage facilities be encouraged in every possible way. Bounties were offered; bonuses were given; every encouragement was offered by the smaller towns to those who wished to establish cold storage plants within their precincts, so that in seasons when the supply was greater than the demand the surplus foodstuffs might not be lost. I do not think that in the conserving of perishable foodstuffs in cold storage may be found the source of the difficulties that confront us.	_
I should like to direct the attention oi the House to some significant remarks from the pen of Sir Edmund Walker. Speaking on the subject of exchange he says:
The correction of the situation cannot be permanently adjusted by the shipment of gold or sale of securities. The rehabilitation of our dollar can only be accomplished by saving, economy and greater production. The rising curve of prices cannot be made to turn downward without an increase of production, nor
74i
can we face the heavy obligations left by the war except by greatly increasing production. The man who does not do his best at his particular job is not merely helping to barricade the only pathway that will lead us out of our troubles, but he is helping to raise, or to maintain, the cost of the necessities of life for his own family. I may be called a friend of capital for saying this, but I am on record elsewhere as an advocate of many changes in the present relations of the employee and employer, all of them in favour of the employee.
While we and the rest of the world are failing to produce on a sufficient scale to provide for human comforts, and to pay our debts, the price of everything has so increased, that although all clearing-house and trade returns show higher figures in money, these generally represent transactions based on smaller quantities of merchandise, and because we think in terms of dollars and not of merchandise, we are living in a fool's paradise.
Then he goes on to say, with regard to purchasing at home:
For every purchase of goods made abroad, whether in Great Britain or China, or anywhere else, we settle through New York, and the rise or fall of the rate of exchange, about which we are so much concerned, is the expression of our failure, or the reverse, to pay cash or its equivalent.
The member for St. Denis argues that the largely increased price of potatoes at the present time over the price last Fall -I think he quoted the present price at $5 a bag-is evidence of profiteering on the part of the farmer. Well, if he thinks that the fixation of prices of agricultural products will bring about lower prices, he is making a great mistake. It is the unsettled and uncertain condition of the country and the constant whining about the prices of the products of the farmer that is causing the slackening of production. So long as the export markets available to this country give a fair price for the products of the farm, that price will be the price commanded by the farmer for similar products sold in Canada. The present price of potatoes is not the result of potatoes being held in cold storage or their being carried over from last year. If Canada had now in the dump basket her total production of potatoes of last year she would not begin to have enough to supply the demands of our friends across the line, a large portion of whose crop was destroyed. Potatoes are $5 a bag to-day because the buyer in the United States needs our product and is willing to pay the price. Then why talk nonsense about the farmer profiteering and about the prices of farm products advancing? Let us get away from that attitude; let us get in sympathy with the man on the farm, in order that we may encourage him to greater production. We are asking

the farmer, and justly so, to bend every effort toward largely increased production. If you want larger production from the land, the best way to encourage it is to give the farmer the assurance of stability of prices.; you will not encourage him by bickering with him, whining about his prices, and trying to create the impression that he is a profiteer. If he grows and produces it is not a matter of cost; it is a matter of what the world's markets will give him for his products; that is what he is honestly entitled to obtain. It does hot come well from labour or from those in the city who work in offices or follow professional callings, and who work perhaps only seven hours a day, to criticize the man who labours from twelve to sixteen hours a day.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. gentleman pretend that the professional man, the lawyer or the doctor, works only seven hours a day?
, Mr. GLASS: Well, to answer my hon. friend honestly, I would not think he works that much. My hon. friend argued that it was not the farmers far distant from the cities who were the profiteers-and that is not a very pleasant word, I submit, to throw at them-it was the truck farmer, the man living close to the city, who was getting the high prices. I live in the centre of a country which carries on a large truckfarming business. There the truck gardeners gather from all around and sell their commodities in the open market at the prices which the public are willing to givA The reason why prices are higher in the city is not that the farmer is trying to force a higher price; it is the inevitable working of the law of supply and demand. There is a greater demand for the commodities in the city, and the price is that which the consumer is willing to pay:	Early vegetables come from the United States in the early part of the year, and the prices in our country closely follow those of the products that come in from the other side. I sub-'mit that the law of supply and demand regulates the prices in the markets close to the cities. That, to my mind, is evidence of the importance to the farmer of the home market, which at the present time consumes over eighty per cent of the entire products of Canadian farms.
There are some further remarks of 'Sir Edmund Walker's which I should like to quote, but Sir Edmund Walker's opinion expressed in w'hat I have read is, I think, really the crux of the whole matter. If we are going to improve conditions and

lower the cost of living, it must be by getting efficiency in our labour and by working longer hours. In this great reconstruction crisis of this country and of the world, if labour had fully met national needs, labour would have given longer service and the most efficient service possible to increase the production of commodities, because it is only in that way that we can hope to have lower price levels. Sir Edmund Walker makes some observations with reference to the process of adjustment, and I take the liberty of quoting him because what he says is very cogent and forceful and 'bears on the case. He says:
The difficulties of reconstruction after the great war are even greater than we feared. The whole world is feeling the effect of four years in which the ordinary work and economics of life were not merely neglected, but the basis thereof was almost swept away. We are short of almost every commodity, the strongest evidence of this being the fact that millions of people in Europe face actual starvation. We cannot re-establish the normal supply of commodities except toy working harder than usual, and we cannot lessen the terrible strain of high prices without doing the extra work which will put an end to the lack of commodities. We cannot adjust prices without also bringing about a contraction in the volume of paper money and other instruments of credit, and so far as it is possible to enforce contraction without interfering with the production of what is really necessary, the reduction of prices will be facilitated. In a word, bankers should not aid speculation, or assist ventures which do not directly lead to production. We are still building ships with feverish haste throughout the world, and we ought to be spending large sums on railroads in order that commodities may be freely distributed. The present cost of ocean transportation, quite as much as the cost of goods at the primary market stands like a huge barrier across the pathway of return to normal conditions. x What is worse, however, is that even present prices, in the natural order of things, will go on rising until the lack in the world's supply of commodities has been filled, and there has been a large contraction in the volume of paper money now in existence	 Prices will be higher than before
the war for many years to come, but a readjustment to tolerable conditions is absolutely necessary if we are to enjoy the peace bought at such a cost. Governments must cease borrowing and keep their expenditures within their powers of taxation; both individuals and governments must spend less on things not absolutely necessary, and we must all work harder to produce the normal supply of all the commodities useful in life.
Speaking of co-operation, Sir Edmund Walker says in a few words:
Canada won its high place in the world's regard by superb co-operation in the one idea of winning the war. Can we not compromise for the moment the differences between capital and labour, between farmer and manufacturer, between the various interests that are risking our future for the sake of their own particular grievances, and co-operate. in another idea.

equally great, the restoration of peace and the return of prosperity on a better foundation? With this accomplished the separate ideals of the industrial divisions of our society can be discussed with far more chance of fair adjustment than is possible in these difficult times.
Just in conclusion, I say to my hon. friends who find so much at fault with conditions on the farm and the increased cost of living, that if labour and all other interests would co-operate in lending encouragement to increased production on the farm, we would much sooner see the end of the difficult situation which confronts us. Not only is a kinder sympathy and sentiment towards the producer of the soil necessary, but an earnest, sincere desire on the part of labour itself to do its share in this reconstruction, is essential. If wages are higher and hours are eight hours a day, then labour must do eight hours' efficient work; it must deliver the goods. That is what is essential on the part of labour, if it is to do its share in this period of reconstruction.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this -debate, but I feel constrained to do so following the brief remarks of my hon. friend, the member for St. Denis (Mr. Verville), who, a few moments ago, described to us the ordinary farmer, as a man coming three times a week to sell his products on the city market. That man, Mr. Speaker, is not a farmer at all; he is .simply a middleman; more than that, he is a profiteer. As a rule, such a man -does not own a farm. He travels through the country, buying from the farmers products which he isells the following day at exhorbi-tant prices on the city market, he is in short that individual whom the hon. member for St. Denis described a few moments ago as deserving to be hanged.
In the minds of some city people the farmer should meekly allow himself to be cheated out of his due, letting all the profits go to the middleman. Some speakers complained of the high price of all commodities. They think that they are being fleeced when called upon to pay 80 cents for a pound of butter and $5 for a bag of potatoes. It is exceedingly high, they say; it is outrageous and revolting for the workingman to pay such prices. However, it would be well to make the public realize that this butter for which the working man to-day pays 80 cents a pound is really the same commodity which the farmer sold 45 cents a pound last fall, while the potatoes which are retailed this very day at $5 a bag, in Ottawa, were bought from the farmer at the rate of 90 cents or $1.10 a bag. You must admit with me, Mr. Speaker, that the profits allowed to the farmeT are very small compared with those which the middleman gets as intermediary between the producer and the -consumer,
In my opinion one of the best means of reducing the high cost of living, would be first to speak o>f it less frequently and to do more work. Some hon. members-and I don't blame them for that-who represent certain manufacturing centres in this Parliament, when the eight hour day is being discussed, are the first to say; "We are in favour of an eight hour day for the workingman." In my opinion, one of the factors of the increase in the cost of living is the eight hour day. I believe that the best suggestion which I could offer would be to at once start a campaign for the purpose of satisfying the- workingman that he is not being despoiled by the farmer and that it is not fair for him, as a consumer, to ask. for an eight hour day's work, while he requires that the farmer should stay at work during fourteen or fifteen hours a day for the production of the foodstuffs he requires. These are so many reasons, or * conditions, which make for the increase of the cost of living.
Mr. d'ANJOU (Rimouski) translation): Mr. Stpeak-er, I would not like to allow this resolution to be adopted without adding a few words.
I listened with great attention to the speeches which have been delivered, especially by some of my hon. friends who represent divisions in the city of Montreal. They seem to hold the farmer responsible for the soaring of the prices of commodities. I cannot agree with them at all on that point. As the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Fafar-d) stated a -few moments ago, the farmer is not to blame; we must lay the blame at the door of the middleman, who buys the products from the farmer with a view to hoarding them in cold storage in warehouses, where they deteriorate, instead of -placing them upon the market. Consequently it is absolutely unfair to charge the-farmers with profiteering. Moreover, we must take into consideration the fact that if they sell to-day their products at higher prices than formerly, it- is -due to. the increase in the (cost of labour and of farming implements. Therefore, they are perfectly justified in increasing to a certain extent the price of their products; but I say again, the only profiteers are the middlemen.
Farmers work from sunrise to sunset; they are toiling on land, toiling hard and;

continuously, and therefore, they ought to be rewarded ifor their work.
In my opinion, the best means, the most efficacious method for checking the high cost of living, is not in bringing down resolutions to that effect in this House; nor in casting reflections or slurs upon the farming community, but in intensifying farm production, in creating an army of tillers of the soil, in starting a live campaign. The object of which would be to attract young men back to the land, en to stem the rush to cities, and in offering them every possible inducement to remain on the farm; furthermore in taking the taxes off agricultural implements and other accessories of life.
It must not be lost sight of that in this country, as everywhere else, consumption is increasing and production is on the wane. Therefore equilibrium should be restored, and production must keep pace with consumption. In order to remedy that evil, it behooves the Government to look more closely after the interests of the farming industry; it is up to them to spend considerable sums of money, if need be, so as to further that end, and as I said, to readjust the tariff and take the taxes off agricultural implements and the necessaries of life. 1 am satisfied that by such means the desired end will be reached.
There is not the slightest doubt that the Board of Commerce, created by the Government, has proved, like all those other boards, an unqualified failure; but I do not think that it is by doing away with it that you will succeed in bringing down the high cost of living. As I said, you should encourage agriculture, more liberally than you have done so far, and such encouragement will be a solvent of the important problem -which has been under consideration "to-day.
Motion negatived.



HURONS OF LORETTE.

Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence between the last Huron Chiefs of the Indian Reserve of Lorette, Messrs. Sioui and Sullivan, barristers, and the Department of Indian Affairs since 1883.


Arthur Meighen: There should be more definite information given with respect to this motion. There is no firm of barristers of the name of Messrs Sioui and Sullivan known to the department. The hon. member should also be more definite as to date. It would cost the country a considerable sum of money and the time of a ' 
very large number of clerks to locate all the correspondence back to 1883.
Motion stands.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for the second reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the Criminal Code (Capital Punishment)-Mr. Edwards.
Arthur Meighen: In the absence of my
hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) would suggest that this Bill stand. I really am not acquainted with the contents myself; I would not like to see the Bill go through in the absence'of the minister.


Mr. KAY:: Has the Bill been printed in French?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Bill not being printed in French, it cannot be proceeded with at this stage.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, to provide for the settlement of differences between the Governments of the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia respecting Indian lands and certain other Indian affairs in the said, province.-Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from April 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.-Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Morphy in the Chair.
On section 77-how disagreements as to taxation of expenses settled:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood this section was to be regarded as contentious.


Hugh Guthrie: I had it marked to stand, too.
Section stands.
On section 78-election expenses.


Hugh Guthrie: This section is a compilation of the law which has been in force in this country for many years, and also of some sections taken from the English Act. As the Committee is probably aware, the provisions in the English Act in regard to the payments by candidates for personal expenses, or for the cost of an election, aTe

*much more drastic than they have ever been 'in this country. All the sections of the English Act which would be applicable to conditions in Canada have been incorporated in the present section, and the Committee will see that the restrictions are very great. The idea was not only to keep down the expense of elections on the one hand, but to see that purity in election contests is maintained on the other. For that reason the draftsman of this Bill has incorporated the stringent provisions of the English Act. Personally I see no objection to them.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why are payments made fifty days after an election instead of thirty days?


Hugh Guthrie: I think fifty days is
a very fair period.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would it not be just as fair to make it thirty days? Why keep these accounts hanging around?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is not a matter of much moment.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think the period ought to be thirty days. I do not see why we should make any change at all. Thirty days is quite long enough to keep election bills open.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know. It might be that in settled portions of the country thirty days is a long enough period, but there are other constituencies, not so well settled, where it is not easy to get around. The distances are long, and the means of communication not very ready. I think fifty days is a very reasonable period.


Mr. TRAHAN:: Does the Bill define what is meant by the "personal expenses" of a candidate?


Hugh Guthrie: That is to be found on page 2, paragraph (r).


Arthur Trahan: The definition set out there is very general. It includes "the reasonable travelling expenses of such candidate and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere," and "all other expenses which, except as restrained by this Act, he may in person lawfully incur and pay." If I understand the definition well, a candidate can personally pay for the printing of the voters' list. That is a legal expenditure. He can personally pay the rent of a hall in which to hold meetings. That is also a legal expenditure. He can pay many other expenses, including the cost of committee rooms. But by the section
under consideration you limit the personal expenses of a candidate to the sum of $500. Has the Government thought over the fact that after the next redistribution the constituencies will be laTge? The population of the province of Quebec, which is the basis upon which representation is made, has grown very much, and according to the latest statistics the unit of representation for each constituency, instead of being nearly 30,000, will be nearly 40,000. Therefore the candidate will have a larger constituency and his personal expenditure will certainly be greater. Consequently, I believe that the limit of $500 fixed by this section is altogether too restricted. With the proposed system of enumeration a candidate will have to incur personal expenses to survey the registration of the electors in his constituency, and those expenses will be increased to such an extent that $500 will be altogether inadequate. It must be remembered that candidates cannot always travel by train or trolley car, and they are obliged to hire automobiles at a cost of at least $25 a day in addition to the living expenses of the chauffeur. This restriction to $500 applies during the election, and that is defined in subsection (d) of section 2 in this way:
during an election" or ''at an election" or "throughout an election" includes the period after the issue of the writ for an election, or after the dissolution of Parliament or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of which a writ for an election is eventually issued, until the elected candidate is returned as elected;
According to this definition that period may extend over a couple of months. Does the Government believe that such a restriction is reasonable? For my part I shall be willing to move that the section be amended so as to allow a personal expenditure. of $1,000. It is no use to support the five-hundred-dollar limitation on the ground that you want to secure purity of elections. I am just as anxious as the Government to work to that very desirable end, but I do not want to be a hypocrite, and I assert that in my constituency a sum of $500 is totally insufficient to cover the personal expenditure of a candidate during an election which may last two months. I believe that every hon. member who has had any experience of elections will bear me out. For this reason I move:
That the words ''five hundred dollars" in line 30 on page '58 and in line 23 on page 60 he replaced by the words "one thousand dollars."


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I think
my hon. friend does not quite apprehend

the meaning of the section. The five-hun-dred-dollar limitation is not a limitation of personal expenses, it is the limitation of what a candidate may himself pay, his agent must pay anything over and above the $500.


Arthur Trahan: I am obliged to have my agent with me all the time in that case.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Arthur Trahan: I understand the meaning of the section perfectly well.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no limitation
to $500 in the section.


Arthur Trahan: 
Mr. PROULX:: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. He may expend more, but any amount in excess of $500 has to be paid out by the agent, not by the candidate himself.


Mr. L. THOMSON:: 
Hugh Guthrie: I think so.


Levi Thomson: Then the amount should be very much more in our Act. The candidate in England is never very far away from his agent, whereas one constituency in this country may be as large as the whole of England.


Mr. MAHARG:: My constituency is forty-eight miles by one hundred and eighty miles and there is no railroad in it. You will appreciate what it means to travel around that constituency in a motor car. Moreover, we have not garages out in that country which can afford to wait thirty or sixty days for their money. Usually the owner depends on one car for his living; he has to pay cash for gasoline, and often you have to pay him in advance in order that he may be able to provide himself with the necessary equipment.


Hugh Guthrie: Why should the agent not be asked to arrange the transaction in that case?


John Archibald Maharg: In a large constituency your agent cannot cover the whole ground.


Hugh Guthrie: You are entitled to more than one agent.


John Archibald Maharg: Well, if you want to keep down election expenses, you cannot have a dozen or more agents in all parts of the constituency.


Hugh Guthrie: This provision is not aimed at agents; it is designed to prevent the candidate from spending money at election time for the purpose of making

friends and getting votes. It is to eliminate as far as possible any expenditure on behalf of the candidate. He is given an allowance of $500, but if his legitimate personal expenses run to $5,000 that is all right, provided they are paid by his agent; the candidate may not himself disburse an amount in excess of $500. There is nothing here which provides that the agent shall not pay all legitimate expenses. I cannot conceive that a candidate will be occasioned any great inconvenience, because he is permitted to have an agent to make these bargains.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand the minister to say that the candidate may have several agents?


Hugh Guthrie: There is power for the agent to appoint an agent. Of course, it has to be done in writing; the authority has to be definite. However, this clause appears to be contested, and under our agreement it will have to stand.
Section stands.
On section 79-return of election expenses by official agent.


Mr. FIELDING:: This section provides
that the return shall show " (b) the amount of personal expenses, if any, paid by the candidate." Does that mean the amount in gross or in detail?


Hugh Guthrie: It must be detailed.
Section 76 or 77 shows the details that must be given of the personal expenses. There are one or two clerical errors in this section to be corrected. I move that the word "seven" in line 9 on page 61, and the word " ten " in the same line, be struck out, and " eight " and " twelve " substituted for them respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that after the
word " if " in line 10 on page 62 the following words be inserted: "after six months and."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that the words
" seven " and " ten " in line 46 of page 62 be struck out and that the words " eight " and " twelve " be substituted for them respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move, that the words
" without such authorized excuse as in this Act mentioned" in the first line of page 63 be struck out. This is surplusage.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. DEMERS:: Does this section apply
to a candidate who has not been nominated, but who was a candidate according to the definition given in section 2, paragraph
.(b)?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it can
apply to any one who has not been nominated, because this all applies to what has transpired during and' after the election. These returns have to be put in afterwards.
A man who has not been a candidate would not have to put in any of these returns.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to subsection (7), which is taken from the English Act, it, may be that the time fixed there is all right as far as England is concerned, but it might work an injury in regard to some of the constituencies in this country. A member is prevented from taking his seat in the House unless the return and declarations are transmitted before the . .expiration of a certain time. That is a very considerable penalty for not making a return. There might be a penalty in the nature of a fine or something of that kind, but to prevent a member taking his seat is going pretty far. Some of our constituencies are very remote and some of them are pretty large, and unless the period of time has been very carefully considered-I should be afraid that this subsection might work a hardship in some cases.


Hugh Guthrie: The statement has to be put in within two months after the candidate has been declared elected, but there is nothing to prevent a candidate from put
ting it in the day after an election if he so desires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But his statement in regard to expenses has to be made in detail.


Hugh Guthrie: The English rule is that until that has been done, he shall not take his seat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not objecting to this provision, but I wanted to know whether the element of time had been considered carefully.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is a pretty
fair provision.


Mr. ROBB:: Subsection (5) provides for
publishing the returns in detail in a newspaper published or circulated in the electoral district. Suppose no newspaper was published in the district, and that a candidate selected a newspaper of which only five copies were circulated in that district,

would the minister consider that " a newspaper circulating in the district?"


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I think if even
only one copy went to the district regularly, that paper would be regarded as "circulating " there. Where no paper is published in a constituency, I think publication in a paper that goes to the district would be sufficient to comply with the law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 80-bribery, treating, undue influence and personation:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an
omission of a few words that are found in the old Act, and I would like to ask the minister if it has any significance. In subsection (e), page 65, line 16, the subsection reads:
Advances or pays, or causes to be paid, any money to or to the use of any other person with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election.
In the old Act it read "shall be expended for bribery or corrupt practices in any election." Would it not be better to keep these words in?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the Act is differently constructed. The former section was 265, and it began with the declaration that every person who directly or indirectly does so-and-so shall be disqualified for a term of eight years, and so on. The present Bill is drawn upon a different plan. It begins:
Every person is guilty of the corrupt practice of bribery and of an indictable offence-
And so on. Bribery itself is a corrupt practice and bribery is included amongst these things which are enumerated and declared to he corrupt practices. By the first line in the section bribery is declared to be a corrupt practice punishable under this Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is also a difference in subsection (f), where it speaks of the giving of a "valuable consideration for any office, place or employment." The old Act added "or for the promise of any office, place or employment." Should that be dropped?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to these words being added to the subsection.
I would therefore move that the words "or for the promise of any office, place or employment or" be added after the word "or" in the last line of subsection (f). Amendment agreed to.


Lucien Cannon: Will the minister explain to the committee what period is covered by the expressions "before the election" and "after the election" mentioned in paragraphs (g) and (h)?


Hugh Guthrie: "During an election,
after an election and throughout an election" are defined as including the period after the issue of the writ for an election, after the dissolution of Parliament, or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of which a writ for an election is eventually issued, until the elected candidate is returned elected.


Mr. PARENT:: Is that the interpretation of the law?
iMr. CANNION: What about the word "before" in paragraph-(g)?


Hugh Guthrie: "Before an election"
would be that period before the issue of the writ, because, as is well known, the candidates are sometimes a long time in the field, indulging actively in canvassing, making speeches, and the like. (I presume it would apply to the time before the issue of the writ.


Lucien Cannon: There is no limitation as to time at all.


Hugh Guthrie: The courts have decided that when a man announces himself as a candidate, that is the time when he really becomes the candidate.


Lucien Cannon: The minister probably
knows that some people are perpetual candidates. Therefore according to the definition given by the minister it would be any time at all.


Hugh Guthrie: In that case we will have to allow good judgment and common sense to govern.
Section as amended agreed to.
-On section 81-treating of any person.
iMr. McKiBNZIE: Is this the same section as in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: It is an adaption of two sections in the old Act and a few words from the English Act.
Mr. McKENZIE.: It is rather a dangerous experiment to be changing the sections at all unless for a really good purpose. We have had a great many election trials in this country and the decisions in those trials have been given under the sections in the old Act. If we now change those

sections we practically destroy the effect of all those decisions. Unless there is really some good purpose to be served we should refrain as much as possible from making any changes.
'Mr. GUTHRIE: I agree in the main with the statement of my hon. friend, but I think the present section is much more comprehensive, and at the same time much more clear, than the other two sections were together. I think the present section is a decided improvement on the old language. While the meaning and scope is preserved, I think the offences described in the section are much more clearly described and in better language. At the same time, as a general rule I think it is as well to maintain as far as possible the exact language. That has been done, I think, in the drafting of this measure.


Mr.   GANNON@: The section reads "any person who corruptly," and so on. Why should the word "corruptly" be placed there?
Mr. (GUTHRIE: To what part of the section does my hon. friend refer?


Mr.   GANNON@: To the third line of section 81 where it says "who corruptly." Is not the act supposed to be corrupt?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose there may be an innocent act under the language of that section. The old law has maintained the word "corruptly" and we have continued it in this Bill. You may innocently do a thing not for the purpose of influencing a vote, which is forbidden in the section. If you did it for the purpose of influencing a vote it would be corrupt. I can distinguish between an act of charity and a corrupt act, and it is to safeguard the acts of pure innocence-


Georges Parent: The salvation of candidates.


Hugh Guthrie: -that the word "corruptly" is put in. No, I do not think for the salvation of candidates. I think it is a generally accepted term, it has been in our election law for many years. The motive of a man's act must be established.
(Mr. CANNON: If it becomes a question of intent how could any judge or any court penetrate the intentions of a party or person?	_


Hugh Guthrie: By overt acts.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose I were brought before the courts under section 81 I would
only have to prove that I had no corrupt intention, If there is no "mens rea" there is no crime. I think if the clause is to mean anything the word "corruptly" should be struck out, otherwise there can be no conviction if the accused has a lawyer who knows anything about criminal law and the criminal intent which has to be connected with the case.


Hugh Guthrie: A great many cases have been prosecuted under that section. The burden of proving the corrupt intention has been on those who set it up, and they have succeeded. The corrupt intention must be presumed from acts and language as well as from mental attitude. It is a word so well known in the jurisprudence of this country that I would hesitate to strike it out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word "corruptly" is used twice. The section says that every person who "corruptly" does what is mentioned for the purpose of "corruptly" influencing. I should think that one "corruptly" would be sufficient. The section should apply to any person who corruptly does the thing described for the purpose of influencing, or does it for the purpose of corruptly influencing.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it hurts the section at all, although it might be just as well to have but the one. I would not like to change it though.


Charles Gavan Power: For the good of the candidate's friends in a free country like the province of Quebec 'I would suggest that we strike out the word "corruptly" because otherwise all the time during which a man is a candidate he will not be able to treat his friends at all; they will have to go round with him and look after him and to see that hospitality is dispensed with. I think it is rather absurd.


Hugh Guthrie: How did they get on in the past in that' respect?


Charles Gavan Power: In the past there was only a period of eight days. The candidate was therefore only a burden to his friends for that short time.


Hugh Guthrie: No, he was a candidate from the date of the issue of the wrjt? The law in that respect has not been .changed and the word "corruptly" was always in the statute. ,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would think that if the word "oorruiptly" were omitted before the word "influencing" it would make the intention of the section clearer.


Hugh Guthrie: That language is identical with the language in the old Act. The old law applied to every candidate "who corruptly by himself and others for the purpose of corruptly influencing." I think if I were' drafting that section I would have put in one "corruptly" but 1 would not like to change it now. I do not think it hurts any.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 82-undue influence; false pretence interpreted.
Mr. M'cKENZIE: Is this section different from the old section?
Hugh Guthrie: The framework is altered, the other section starting out differently, but the sense is the same.
Mr. PARENT; Would my hon. friend give us the definition of "spiritual injury"?


Hugh Guthrie: I think perhaps Sir
Oliver Lodge might be qualified to do so, but I am not.


Georges Parent: Is that a new addition?


Hugh Guthrie: Those words "temporal or spiritual" were not in the old law.


Georges Parent: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that the words "spiritual injury" be struck out.


Hugh Guthrie: For what reason?
Mr. PARENT':	I cannot hear from my
hon. friend any reason why those words should be inserted there. I do not see how we can find out or estimate "spiritual" injury.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose the meaning
of the words is a threat of some injury in this life or in the life hereafter. I think that such a threat operating on a weak-minded individual might be serious. Therefor I can see no objection to the words remaining. I may say, however, that I do not think they are of very great efficacy. Section agreed to.
On section 83-personation and subornation of personation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have had no time to study the Bill, but I rather fear this section does not cover the case of a man who, having no right to vote, comes forward and asks for a ballot in his own name.


Hugh Guthrie: That would not be an offence unless he takes the oath. It has always been permitted to a man to ask for the right to vote, and he may, through ignorance, think he has that right. The 
test is: Will he be sworn? If he takes the oath, then he is liable under the criminal law as well as under the provisions of this Bill. This section does not prevent a man asking for a vote, unless he does it fraudulently.


Charles Gavan Power: Does this Bill provide for one man one vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Subsection (b) reads "having voted once at such election," and so on. Supposing a person votes in a neighbouring constituency?


Hugh Guthrie: He would be guilty of
an offence under this Bill; and punishable at law. It is provided that he shall vote once in the constituency in which he resides.


Lucien Cannon: Is an elector entitled to
only one vote at an election, or is he entitled to one vote 'in two or more constituencies?


Hugh Guthrie: No; the principle of
one man one vote has been adopted.


Charles Gavan Power: In what particular clause is that specified?


Hugh Guthrie: It certainly is specified in the oath.


William Stevens Fielding: It also means one
woman one vote.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Georges Parent: If he does not swear he can vote many times.


Hugh Guthrie: If he does he renders
himself liable to the penalties prescribed.
I think there is a declaration in one of the clauses that stood over that a man can vote only where he resides.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think so. I remember looking through the Bill and thinking that the attention of the committee should be called to this matter. Under our provincial law we have one man one vote, but up to the present time under the federal law in Quebec a man has been able to vote in two or three constituencies if his name is on the lists.


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 29 I think covers it. The qualifications of an elector under subsection (c) is that he has ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of the writ. He is not qualified unless he complies with that subsection. So he must

vote where he resides, and he can reside in only one place for two months.


Charles Gavan Power: Take the case of a man
who has property in one constituency in the country and is placed on the list in respect of that property; within two months of the election he moves into a city and is placed on the city list. Is there anything to prevent him voting in both constituencies?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: How?
Mr. PARDEE!: He does not reside in the country any more.
(Mr. GUTHRIE:	He has to take an oath
that he has resided for at least two months-in the constituency in which he is voting.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He would be challenged.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I call the attention of the
minister to section 32.


Hugh Guthrie: That was allowed to
stand.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It refers to this same thing. Subsection (9) speaks of a person who applies to be again registered in the same electoral district, which to my mind rather implies that he could ask to be- enrolled in another electoral district.


Hugh Guthrie: Because the Act deals with it on the basis of residence, and I believe that residence should govern.


Mr. CALDWELL:: The dividing line between two constituencies in Ontario runs through the centre of a man's farm. On one side is his house; on the other his barns and the houses in which his hired help live. This man is in one constituency as much as in the other, for he works as much about his barns as about the house. Is he regarded as having residence in two constituencies, and if so, is he allowed to vote in two constituencies?


Hugh Guthrie: Under this Bill, as under the Ontario law, there would be no difficulty in deciding that question. The house in which he lives would be his residence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion-of Hon. Mr. Rowell the House adjourned at 11-13 p-m.
Tuesday, April 13, 1920.